We present ARCTraj, a dataset and methodological framework for modeling human reasoning through complex visual tasks in the Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus (ARC). While ARC has inspired extensive research on abstract reasoning, most existing approaches rely on static input--output supervision, which limits insight into how reasoning unfolds over time. ARCTraj addresses this gap by recording temporally ordered, object-level actions that capture how humans iteratively transform inputs into outputs, revealing intermediate reasoning steps that conventional datasets overlook. Collected via the O2ARC web interface, it contains around 10,000 trajectories annotated with task identifiers, timestamps, and success labels across 400 training tasks from the ARC-AGI-1 benchmark. It further defines a unified reasoning pipeline encompassing data collection, action abstraction, Markov decision process (MDP) formulation, and downstream learning, enabling integration with reinforcement learning, generative modeling, and sequence modeling methods such as PPO, World Models, GFlowNets, Diffusion agents, and Decision Transformers. Analyses of spatial selection, color attribution, and strategic convergence highlight the structure and diversity of human reasoning. Together, these contributions position ARCTraj as a structured and interpretable foundation for studying human-like reasoning, advancing explainability, alignment, and generalizable intelligence.

The Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus for Artificial General Intelligence (ARC-AGI) is a generative, few-shot fluid intelligence benchmark. Although humans effortlessly solve ARC-AGI, it remains extremely difficult for even the most advanced artificial intelligence systems. Inspired by methods for modelling human intelligence spanning neuroscience to psychology, we propose a cognitively plausible ARC-AGI solver. Our solver integrates System 1 intuitions with System 2 reasoning in an efficient and interpretable process using neurosymbolic methods based on Vector Symbolic Algebras (VSAs). Our solver works by object-centric program synthesis, leveraging VSAs to represent abstract objects, guide solution search, and enable sample-efficient neural learning. Preliminary results indicate success, with our solver scoring 10.8% on ARC-AGI-1-Train and 3.0% on ARC-AGI-1-Eval. Additionally, our solver performs well on simpler benchmarks, scoring 94.5% on Sort-of-ARC and 83.1% on 1D-ARC -- the latter outperforming GPT-4 at a tiny fraction of the computational cost. Importantly, our approach is unique; we believe we are the first to apply VSAs to ARC-AGI and have developed the most cognitively plausible ARC-AGI solver yet. Our code is available at: https://github.com/ijoffe/ARC-VSA-2025.

The Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus remains one of the most compelling and challenging benchmarks for tracking progress toward achieving Artificial General Intelligence. In contrast to other evaluation datasets designed to assess an agent's task-specific skills or accumulated knowledge, the ARC-AGI suite is specifically targeted at measuring skill acquisition efficiency, a trait that has (so far) been lacking in even the most sophisticated machine learning systems. For algorithms that require extensive intra-task exemplars, a significant constraint imposed by ARC-AGI is the modest cardinality of its demonstration set, comprising a small number of $\langle$ input, output $\rangle$ grids per task specifying the corresponding transformation. To embellish the space of viable sample pairs, this paper introduces ARC-GEN, an open-source procedural generator aimed at extending the original ARC-AGI training dataset as faithfully as possible. Unlike prior efforts, our generator is both exhaustive (covering all four-hundred tasks) and mimetic (more closely honoring the distributional properties and characteristics embodied in the initial ARC-AGI-1 release). We also discuss the use of this generator in establishing a static benchmark suite to verify the correctness of programs submitted to the 2025 Google Code Golf Championship.

The Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus (ARC) poses a stringent test of general AI capabilities, requiring solvers to infer abstract patterns from only a handful of examples. Despite substantial progress in deep learning, state-of-the-art models still achieve accuracy rates of merely 40-55% on 2024 ARC Competition, indicative of a significant gap between their performance and human-level reasoning. In this work, we seek to bridge that gap by introducing an analogy-inspired ARC dataset, GIFARC. Leveraging large language models (LLMs) and vision-language models (VLMs), we synthesize new ARC-style tasks from a variety of GIF images that include analogies. Each new task is paired with ground-truth analogy, providing an explicit mapping between visual transformations and everyday concepts. By embedding robust human-intuitive analogies into ARC-style tasks, GIFARC guides AI agents to evaluate the task analogically before engaging in brute-force pattern search, thus efficiently reducing problem complexity and build a more concise and human-understandable solution. We empirically validate that guiding LLM with analogic approach with GIFARC affects task-solving approaches of LLMs to align with analogic approach of human.

The Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus (ARC), later renamed ARC-AGI, poses a fundamental challenge in artificial general intelligence (AGI), requiring solutions that exhibit robust abstraction and reasoning capabilities across diverse tasks, while only few (with median count of three) correct examples are presented. While ARC-AGI remains very challenging for artificial intelligence systems, it is rather easy for humans. This paper introduces ARC-NCA, a developmental approach leveraging standard Neural Cellular Automata (NCA) and NCA enhanced with hidden memories (EngramNCA) to tackle the ARC-AGI benchmark. NCAs are employed for their inherent ability to simulate complex dynamics and emergent patterns, mimicking developmental processes observed in biological systems. Developmental solutions may offer a promising avenue for enhancing AI's problem-solving capabilities beyond mere training data extrapolation. ARC-NCA demonstrates how integrating developmental principles into computational models can foster adaptive reasoning and abstraction. We show that our ARC-NCA proof-of-concept results may be comparable to, and sometimes surpass, that of ChatGPT 4.5, at a fraction of the cost.

Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) have generated growing interest in their structured reasoning capabilities, particularly in tasks involving abstraction and pattern recognition. The Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus (ARC) benchmark plays a crucial role in evaluating these capabilities by testing how well AI models generalize to novel problems. While GPT-4o demonstrates strong performance by solving all ARC tasks under zero-noise conditions, other models like DeepSeek R1 and LLaMA 3.2 fail to solve any, suggesting limitations in their ability to reason beyond simple pattern matching. To explore this gap, we systematically evaluate these models across different noise levels and temperature settings. Our results reveal that the introduction of noise consistently impairs model performance, regardless of architecture. This decline highlights a shared vulnerability: current LLMs, despite showing signs of abstract reasoning, remain highly sensitive to input perturbations. Such fragility raises concerns about their real-world applicability, where noise and uncertainty are common. By comparing how different model architectures respond to these challenges, we offer insights into the structural weaknesses of modern LLMs in reasoning tasks. This work underscores the need for developing more robust and adaptable AI systems capable of handling the ambiguity and variability inherent in real-world scenarios. Our findings aim to guide future research toward enhancing model generalization, robustness, and alignment with human-like cognitive flexibility.

The Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus (ARC) poses a significant challenge to artificial intelligence, demanding broad generalization and few-shot learning capabilities that remain elusive for current deep learning methods, including large language models (LLMs). While LLMs excel in program synthesis, their direct application to ARC yields limited success. To address this, we introduce ConceptSearch, a novel function-search algorithm that leverages LLMs for program generation and employs a concept-based scoring method to guide the search efficiently. Unlike simplistic pixel-based metrics like Hamming distance, ConceptSearch evaluates programs on their ability to capture the underlying transformation concept reflected in the input-output examples. We explore three scoring functions: Hamming distance, a CNN-based scoring function, and an LLM-based natural language scoring function. Experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of ConceptSearch, achieving a significant performance improvement over direct prompting with GPT-4. Moreover, our novel concept-based scoring exhibits up to 30% greater efficiency compared to Hamming distance, measured in terms of the number of iterations required to reach the correct solution. These findings highlight the potential of LLM-driven program search when integrated with concept-based guidance for tackling challenging generalization problems like ARC.

While significant progress has been made in task-specific applications, current models struggle with deep reasoning, generality, and adaptation -- key components of System 2 reasoning that are crucial for achieving Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). Despite the promise of approaches such as program synthesis, language models, and transformers, these methods often fail to generalize beyond their training data and to adapt to novel tasks, limiting their ability to perform human-like reasoning. This paper explores the limitations of existing approaches in achieving advanced System 2 reasoning and highlights the importance of generality and adaptation for AGI. Moreover, we propose four key research directions to address these gaps: (1) learning human intentions from action sequences, (2) combining symbolic and neural models, (3) meta-learning for unfamiliar environments, and (4) reinforcement learning to reason multi-step. Through these directions, we aim to advance the ability to generalize and adapt, bringing computational models closer to the reasoning capabilities required for AGI.

The measure of intelligence is the ability to change. Abstract The Fall 2024 Logic in Computer Science column of the Bulletin of EATCS is a little discussion on intelligence, measuring intelligence, and related issues, provoked by a fascinating must-read article "On the measure of intelligence" by François Chollet. The discussion includes a modicum of critique of the article. Q: Is it about psychology? Chollet is a prominent figure in AI. Q: We spoke about AI last spring. But you didn't seem to be interested in AI before that. A: This is largely correct, though I read Norbert Wiener's "Cybernetics" [18], when it was translated to Russian in 1968, and was taken with it. For a while I tried to follow cybernetics developments, at least in the USSR.

The Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus (ARC) is a visual program synthesis benchmark designed to test challenging out-of-distribution generalization in humans and machines. Since 2019, limited progress has been observed on the challenge using existing artificial intelligence methods. Comparing human and machine performance is important for the validity of the benchmark. While previous work explored how well humans can solve tasks from the ARC benchmark, they either did so using only a subset of tasks from the original dataset, or from variants of ARC, and therefore only provided a tentative estimate of human performance. In this work, we obtain a more robust estimate of human performance by evaluating 1729 humans on the full set of 400 training and 400 evaluation tasks from the original ARC problem set. We estimate that average human performance lies between 73.3% and 77.2% correct with a reported empirical average of 76.2% on the training set, and between 55.9% and 68.9% correct with a reported empirical average of 64.2% on the public evaluation set. However, we also find that 790 out of the 800 tasks were solvable by at least one person in three attempts, suggesting that the vast majority of the publicly available ARC tasks are in principle solvable by typical crowd-workers recruited over the internet. Notably, while these numbers are slightly lower than earlier estimates, human performance still greatly exceeds current state-of-the-art approaches for solving ARC. To facilitate research on ARC, we publicly release our dataset, called H-ARC (human-ARC), which includes all of the submissions and action traces from human participants.