Using counterfactual tasks to evaluate the generality of analogical reasoning in large language models
Open accessAbstract
Large language models (LLMs) have performed well on several reasoning benchmarks, including ones that test analogical reasoning abilities. However, it has been debated whether they are actually performing humanlike abstract reasoning or instead employing less general processes that rely on similarity to what has been seen in their training data. Here we investigate the generality of analogy-making abilities previously claimed for LLMs (Webb, Holyoak, & Lu, 2023). We take one set of analogy problems used to evaluate LLMs and create a set of "counterfactual" variants-versions that test the same abstract reasoning abilities but that are likely dissimilar from any pre-training data. We test humans and three GPT models on both the original and counterfactual problems, and show that, while the performance of humans remains high for all the problems, the GPT models' performance declines sharply on the counterfactual set. This work provides evidence that, despite previously reported successes of LLMs on analogical reasoning, these models lack the robustness and generality of human analogy-making.
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
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?
Lewis & Mitchell (2024) found that performance deteriorates when using a variant with a permuted alphabet.
“However, Lewis & Mitchell (2024) found that performance deteriorates when using a variant with a permuted alphabet.”
From Anthropocentric Bias in Language Model Evaluation (2026) · cites this paper as Lewis & Mitchell (2024)
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.
Research works printed but not linked: 10
- Dekel, S., Burns, B., & Goldwater, M. (2023). Leaping across the mental canyon: Higher-order long-distance ana- logical retrieval. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 35(8), 856-875.
- Dziri, N., Lu, X., Sclar, M., Li, X. L., Jian, L., Lin, B. Y., . . . Choi, Y. (2023). Faith and fate: Limits of transformers on compositionality. In Proceedings of the Thirty-seventh Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Sys- tems (NeurIPS).
- Geake, J. G., & Hansen, P. C. (2010). Functional neural cor- relates of fluid and crystallized analogizing. NeuroImage, 49(4), 3489-3497.
- In K. J. Holyoak & J. A. Barnden (Eds.), Advances in Con- nectionist and Neural Computation Theory (Vol. 2, pp. 31- 112). Ablex, Norwood, NJ.
- Kambhampati, S. (2023). Can LLMs really rea- son and plan? Communications of the ACM. (https://cacm.acm.org/blogs/blog-cacm/276268
- Mitchell, M. (1993). Analogy-Making As Perception: A Computer Model. In (chap. 5). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
- Razeghi, Y., Logan IV, R. L., Gardner, M., & Singh, S. (2022). Impact of pretraining term frequencies on few-shot numerical reasoning. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022 (pp. 840-854).
- Webb, T., Holyoak, K. J., & Lu, H. (2023). Emergent ana- logical reasoning in large language models. Nature Human Behaviour, 7(9), 1526-1541.
- Wei, J., Tay, Y., Bommasani, R., Raffel, C., Zoph, B., Borgeaud, S., . . . Fedus, W. (2022). Emergent abilities of large language models. Transactions on Machine Learning Research.
- Wei, J., Wang, X., Schuurmans, D., Bosma, M., Ichter, B., Xia, F., . . . Zhou, D. (2022). Chain-of-thought prompt- ing elicits reasoning in large language models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35, 24824- 24837.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The benefits and dangers of anthropomorphic conversational agents
Peter, S., Riemer, K., & West, J. D. (2025) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2415898122 · Cited by 110 · see citing works
Nezhurina, M., Cipolina-Kun, L., Cherti, M., & Jitsev, J. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2406.02061 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Aligning generalization between humans and machines
Ilievski, F., Hammer, B., van Harmelen, F., Paaßen, B., Saralajew, S., Schmid, U., Biehl, M. L., Bolognesi, M., Dong, X., Gashteovski, K., et al. (2025) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-025-01109-4 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
“However, with increasing task complexity and system opaqueness, it becomes challenging to guarantee the generalizability assumptions: IID and task-representative data.”
A roadmap for evaluating moral competence in large language models
Haas, J., Bridgers, S., Manzini, A., Henke, B., May, J., Levine, S., Weidinger, L., Shanahan, M., Lum, K., Gabriel, I., et al. (2026) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-025-10021-1 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
“The facsimile problem affects LLM computations of all kinds, including counting 40 , analogical reasoning 41,42 and the generation of new solutions to open-ended problems 43 .”
Large language models (LLMs) as research Subjects: Status, opportunities and challenges
Zhao, C., Habule, M., & Zhang, W. (2025) · New Ideas in Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.newideapsych.2025.101167 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
LLMs as models for analogical reasoning
Musker, S., Duchnowski, A., Millière, R., & Pavlick, E. (2025) · Journal of Memory and Language · doi:10.1016/j.jml.2025.104676 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
“For example, the results of human subjects on the ‘‘zero-generalization setting’’ studied by both Lewis and Mitchell (2024) and Webb et al. (2023) range from 0.2–0.8 in the former study and from 0.5–1.0 in the latter study.”
InfluentialARN: Analogical Reasoning on Narratives
Sourati, Z., Ilievski, F., Sommerauer, P., & Jiang, Y. (2024) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00688 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Can large language models be used to code text for thematic analysis? An explorative study
Han, Z., Tavasi, A., Lee, J.-Y., Luzuriaga, J., Suresh, K., Oppenheim, M., Battaglia, F., & Terlecky, S. R. (2025) · Discover Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1007/s44163-025-00441-3 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
“Conversely, others contend that these models lack the robustness and general characteristics of true analogical reasoning [35].”
Anthropocentric Bias in Language Model Evaluation
Millière, R., & Rathkopf, C. (2026) · Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/coli.a.582 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Visual reasoning in object-centric deep neural networks: A comparative cognition approach
Puebla, G., & Bowers, J. S. (2025) · Neural Networks · doi:10.1016/j.neunet.2025.107582 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
“However, Lewis and Mitchell (2024) showed that good performance was lost when tested on out-of-distribution test stimuli.”
Does AI Prediction Scale to Decision Making?Preprint
Sako, M., & Felin, T. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5193255 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Han, Z., Battaglia, F., Mansuria, K., Heyman, Y., & Terlecky, S. R. (2024) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-5084169/v1
The Dynamics of Analogical Arguments and Their Evaluation
Zhu, W., & Hong, Z. (2026) · Topoi · doi:10.1007/s11245-026-10492-5
- Authors
- Lewis, M., & Mitchell, M.
- Affiliations
- Santa Fe Institute (US)
- ORCID
- Lewis, Martha
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2402.08955
- OpenAlex
- W7062717217
- Cited by
- 10
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 2
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (2139983)
- Templeton World Charity Foundation (20650, 501100011730)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Logic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
- Keywords
- analogical reasoning, large language models, abstract thinking, GPT models, similarity-based reasoning
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
