Your Reasoning Benchmark May Not Test Reasoning: Revealing Perception Bottleneck in Abstract Reasoning Benchmarks

Reasoning benchmarks such as the Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus (ARC) and ARC-AGI are widely used to assess progress in artificial intelligence and are often interpreted as probes of core, so-called ``fluid'' reasoning abilities. Despite their apparent simplicity for humans, these tasks remain challenging for frontier vision-language models (VLMs), a gap commonly attributed to deficiencies in machine reasoning. We challenge this interpretation and hypothesize that the gap arises primarily from limitations in visual perception rather than from shortcomings in inductive reasoning. To verify this hypothesis, we introduce a two-stage experimental pipeline that explicitly separates perception and reasoning. In the perception stage, each image is independently converted into a natural-language description, while in the reasoning stage a model induces and applies rules using these descriptions. This design prevents leakage of cross-image inductive signals and isolates reasoning from perception bottlenecks. Across three ARC-style datasets, Mini-ARC, ACRE, and Bongard-LOGO, we show that the perception capability is the dominant factor underlying the observed performance gap by comparing the two-stage pipeline with against standard end-to-end one-stage evaluation. Manual inspection of reasoning traces in the VLM outputs further reveals that approximately 80 percent of model failures stem from perception errors. Together, these results demonstrate that ARC-style benchmarks conflate perceptual and reasoning challenges and that observed performance gaps may overstate deficiencies in machine reasoning. Our findings underscore the need for evaluation protocols that disentangle perception from reasoning when assessing progress in machine intelligence.

Interactive and Expressive Code-Augmented Planning with Large Language Models

Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate strong abilities in common-sense reasoning and interactive decision-making, but often struggle with complex, long-horizon planning tasks. Recent techniques have sought to structure LLM outputs using control flow and other code-adjacent techniques to improve planning performance. These techniques include using variables (to track important information) and functions (to divide complex tasks into smaller re-usable sub-tasks). However, purely code-based approaches can be error-prone and insufficient for handling ambiguous or unstructured data. To address these challenges, we propose REPL-Plan, an LLM planning approach that is fully code-expressive (it can utilize all the benefits of code) while also being dynamic (it can flexibly adapt from errors and use the LLM for fuzzy situations). In REPL-Plan, an LLM solves tasks by interacting with a Read-Eval-Print Loop (REPL), which iteratively executes and evaluates code, similar to language shells or interactive code notebooks, allowing the model to flexibly correct errors and handle tasks dynamically. We demonstrate that REPL-Plan achieves strong results across various planning domains compared to previous methods.

$\texttt{dattri}$: A Library for Efficient Data Attribution

Data attribution methods aim to quantify the influence of individual training samples on the prediction of artificial intelligence (AI) models. As training data plays an increasingly crucial role in the modern development of large-scale AI models, data attribution has found broad applications in improving AI performance and safety. However, despite a surge of new data attribution methods being developed recently, there lacks a comprehensive library that facilitates the development, benchmarking, and deployment of different data attribution methods. In this work, we introduce $\texttt{dattri}$, an open-source data attribution library that addresses the above needs. Specifically, $\texttt{dattri}$ highlights three novel design features. Firstly, $\texttt{dattri}$ proposes a unified and easy-to-use API, allowing users to integrate different data attribution methods into their PyTorch-based machine learning pipeline with a few lines of code changed. Secondly, $\texttt{dattri}$ modularizes low-level utility functions that are commonly used in data attribution methods, such as Hessian-vector product, inverse-Hessian-vector product or random projection, making it easier for researchers to develop new data attribution methods. Thirdly, $\texttt{dattri}$ provides a comprehensive benchmark framework with pre-trained models and ground truth annotations for a variety of benchmark settings, including generative AI settings. We have implemented a variety of state-of-the-art efficient data attribution methods that can be applied to large-scale neural network models, and will continuously update the library in the future. Using the developed $\texttt{dattri}$ library, we are able to perform a comprehensive and fair benchmark analysis across a wide range of data attribution methods. The source code of $\texttt{dattri}$ is available at https://github.com/TRAIS-Lab/dattri.

Adversarial Attacks on Data Attribution

Data attribution aims to quantify the contribution of individual training data points to the outputs of an AI model, which has been used to measure the value of training data and compensate data providers. Given the impact on financial decisions and compensation mechanisms, a critical question arises concerning the adversarial robustness of data attribution methods. However, there has been little to no systematic research addressing this issue. In this work, we aim to bridge this gap by detailing a threat model with clear assumptions about the adversary's goal and capabilities, and by proposing principled adversarial attack methods on data attribution. We present two such methods, Shadow Attack and Outlier Attack, both of which generate manipulated datasets to adversarially inflate the compensation. The Shadow Attack leverages knowledge about the data distribution in the AI applications, and derives adversarial perturbations through "shadow training", a technique commonly used in membership inference attacks. In contrast, the Outlier Attack does not assume any knowledge about the data distribution and relies solely on black-box queries to the target model's predictions. It exploits an inductive bias present in many data attribution methods - outlier data points are more likely to be influential - and employs adversarial examples to generate manipulated datasets. Empirically, in image classification and text generation tasks, the Shadow Attack can inflate the data-attribution-based compensation by at least 200%, while the Outlier Attack achieves compensation inflation ranging from 185% to as much as 643%.