A²RBench: An Automatic Paradigm for Formally Verifiable Abstract Reasoning Benchmark Generation
Qingchuan Ma, Yuexiao Ma, Yongkang Xie, Tianyu Xie, Xiawu Zheng, Rongrong Ji
Abstract
Abstract reasoning ability reflects the intelligence and generalization capacity of LLMs to extract and apply abstract rules. However, accurately measuring this ability remains challenging: existing benchmarks either rely on expensive manual annotation, limiting their scale, or risk measuring memorization rather than genuine reasoning. To address this, we introduce an automated pipeline named ARBench, encompassing generation, expansion, evaluation, and analysis. Specifically, in the generation stage, LLMs create diverse tasks demanding genuine reasoning; in the expansion stage, LLMs reuse validated rules and expand new input spaces to generate task variations, achieving scaling. However, such a process may cause hallucinations. To eliminate it, we further establish a theoretical framework and prove that programmatic verification—testing whether the inverse operation perfectly reverses the forward operation (cycle consistency)—guarantees a unique solution. Through extensive evaluations on mainstream LLMs, we find: (1) Current LLMs exhibit fundamental deficiencies in abstract reasoning, with top models significantly underperforming humans on a representative subset (39.8% vs. 68.5%). (2) Current LLMs fall far short of 2D and 1D in the complexity of generated 3D tasks, revealing their lack of understanding of high-dimensional tasks. (3) Counterintuitively, inputs with higher information complexity can simplify the reasoning process. Code and data are available at: https://github.com/MAC-AutoML/A2Rbench.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 17c24910-4b7d-4c6b-a014-c27e62165b30Builds on19
- Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackLong Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 24,707 citations
- Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language ModelsJason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 22,562 citations
- Let's Verify Step by StepHunter Lightman, Vineet Kosaraju, Yuri Burda, Harrison Edwards et al.ICLR 2024 · 3,045 citations
- PAL: Program-aided Language ModelsLuyu Gao, Aman Madaan, Shuyan Zhou, Uri Alon et al.ICML 2023 · 700 citations
- Self-Rewarding Language ModelsWeizhe Yuan, Richard Yuanzhe Pang, Kyunghyun Cho, Xian Li et al.ICML 2024 · 569 citations
Related papers
- Can LLMs Reason About Program Semantics? A Comprehensive Evaluation of LLMs on Formal Specification InferenceThanh Le-Cong, Bach Le, Toby MurrayACL 2025
- ARBench: Algorithmic Reasoner or API Alchemist? Evaluating LLMs Beyond API CallsRenbiao Liu, Chao-Zeng Ma, Anqi Li, Hui Sun et al.AAAI 2026
- Meaningful Learning: Enhancing Abstract Reasoning in Large Language Models via Generic Fact GuidanceKai Xiong, Xiao Ding, Ting Liu, Bing Qin et al.NeurIPS 2024
- Benchmarking Abstract and Reasoning Abilities Through A Theoretical PerspectiveQingchuan Ma, Yuhang Wu, Xiawu Zheng, Rongrong JiICML 2025
- InductionBench: LLMs Fail in the Simplest Complexity ClassWenyue Hua, Tyler Wong, Fei Sun, Liangming Pan et al.ACL 2025
