The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
ConceptSearch: Towards Efficient Program Search Using LLMs for Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus (ARC)
Abstract
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.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“ConceptSearch generates 400 candidates for two-step transformations but 8,000 for three-step transformations [Singhal and Shroff 2025].”
From The ARC of Progress towards AGI: A Living Survey of Abstraction and Reasoning (2026) · cites this paper as Singhal and Shroff 2025
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Mathematical discoveries from program search with large language models
Romera-Paredes, B., Barekatain, M., Novikov, A., Balog, M., Kumar, M. P., Dupont, E., Ruiz, F. J. R., Ellenberg, J. S., Wang, P., Fawzi, O., et al. (2024) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06924-6 · Cited by 544
The ConceptARC Benchmark: Evaluating Understanding and Generalization in the ARC Domain
Moskvichev, A., Odouard, V. V., & Mitchell, M. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.07141 · Cited by 92
Research works printed but not linked: 14
- Acquaviva, S.; Pu, Y.; Kryven, M.; Sechopoulos, T.; Wong, C.; Ecanow, G. E.; Nye, M.; Tessler, M. H.; and Tenenbaum, J. B. 2023. Communicating Natural Programs to Humans and Machines. arXiv:2106.07824. · arXiv
- Ainooson, J.; Sanyal, D.; Michelson, J. P.; Yang, Y.; and Kunda, M. 2023. A Neurodiversity-Inspired Solver for the Abstraction & Reasoning Corpus (ARC) Using Visual Im- agery and Program Synthesis. arXiv:2302.09425. · arXiv
- Barke, S.; Gonzalez, E. A.; Kasibatla, S. R.; Berg- Kirkpatrick, T.; and Polikarpova, N. 2024. HYSYNTH: Context-Free LLM Approximation for Guiding Program Synthesis. arXiv:2405.15880. · arXiv
- Bober-Irizar, M.; and Banerjee, S. 2024. Neural networks for abstraction and reasoning: Towards broad generalization in machines. arXiv:2402.03507. · arXiv
- Butt, N.; Manczak, B.; Wiggers, A.; Rainone, C.; Zhang, D. W.; Defferrard, M.; and Cohen, T. 2024. CodeIt: Self- Improving Language Models with Prioritized Hindsight Re- play. arXiv:2402.04858. · arXiv
- Chollet, F. 2019. On the Measure of Intelligence. arXiv:1911.01547. · arXiv
- Ellis, K.; Wong, C.; Nye, M.; Sable-Meyer, M.; Cary, L.; Morales, L.; Hewitt, L.; Solar-Lezama, A.; and Tenen- baum, J. B. 2020. DreamCoder: Growing generalizable, in- terpretable knowledge with wake-sleep Bayesian program learning. arXiv:2006.08381. · arXiv
- Khosla, P.; Teterwak, P.; Wang, C.; Sarna, A.; Tian, Y.; Isola, P.; Maschinot, A.; Liu, C.; and Krishnan, D. 2021. Super- vised Contrastive Learning. arXiv:2004.11362. · arXiv
- Mitchell, M.; Palmarini, A. B.; and Moskvichev, A. 2023. Comparing Humans, GPT-4, and GPT-4V On Abstraction and Reasoning Tasks. arXiv:2311.09247. · arXiv
- Reimers, N.; and Gurevych, I. 2019. Sentence-BERT: Sen- tence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networks. In Pro- ceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Association for Computa- tional Linguistics.
- Wang, R.; Zelikman, E.; Poesia, G.; Pu, Y.; Haber, N.; and Goodman, N. D. 2024. Hypothesis Search: Inductive Rea- soning with Language Models. arXiv:2309.05660. · arXiv
- Xu, Y.; Khalil, E. B.; and Sanner, S. 2022. Graphs, Con- straints, and Search for the Abstraction and Reasoning Cor- pus. arXiv:2210.09880. · arXiv
- Xu, Y.; Li, W.; Vaezipoor, P.; Sanner, S.; and Khalil, E. B. 2024. LLMs and the Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus: Successes, Failures, and the Importance of Object-based Representations. arXiv:2305.18354. · arXiv
- Yu, F.; and Koltun, V. 2016. Multi-Scale Context Aggrega- tion by Dilated Convolutions. arXiv:1511.07122. · arXiv
Cited by
The ARC of Progress towards AGI: A Living Survey of Abstraction and Reasoning
Vahdati, S., Aioanei, A., Suresh, H., & Lehmann, J. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.13372
Metadata
- Authors
- Singhal, K., & Shroff, G.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence
- Published
- 2025-04-11
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 19
- Pages
- 20506-20513
- ISSN
- 2374-3468
- 2159-5399
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 2
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: ConceptSearch: Towards Efficient Program Search Using LLMs for Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus (ARC). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1609/aaai.v39i19.34259
- The paper
- Singhal, K., & Shroff, G. (2025). ConceptSearch: Towards Efficient Program Search Using LLMs for Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus (ARC). Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v39i19.34259
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.