Abstract
Large reasoning models (LRMs) perform well on challenging benchmarks, yet it remains unclear whether they form generalizable abstractions across conceptually related reasoning tasks. The Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus (ARC) provides a controlled testbed for studying abstraction, requiring solvers to infer transformation rules over two-dimensional grids from a small set of examples. While ARC evaluates rule abstraction within individual tasks, different tasks may share higher-level structure despite requiring different transformations$\unicode{x2014}$for example, several tasks may involve reasoning about objects contained within other objects. Benchmarks such as ConceptARC capture this structure by grouping ARC-style tasks into recurring spatial and semantic concepts, but they often contain only a few manually constructed tasks per concept. We introduce ConceptARC at Scale, a generator for creating thousands of ARC-style tasks targeting a specific concept. Using this generator, we construct ConceptARC-100, a dataset of 1,600 new, manually reviewed tasks, with 100 tasks for each of the 16 concepts defined by ConceptARC$\unicode{x2014}$ten times the size of the original benchmark. We evaluate a range of recent LRMs and models trained from scratch on ConceptARC-100 to characterize which concepts they solve reliably and where they struggle. We further analyze the models' internal representations and find clear semantic structure: task representations cluster according to the operations applied to objects, such as recoloring, removal, or translation, even when realized through substantially different rules and scenarios. Together, our results suggest that models form stable abstractions of transformation operations that generalize across diverse tasks.
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.06732
