Do AI Models Perform Human-like Abstract Reasoning Across Modalities?

OpenAI's o3-preview reasoning model exceeded human accuracy on the ARC-AGI benchmark, but does that mean state-of-the-art models recognize and reason with the abstractions that the task creators intended? We investigate models' abstraction abilities on ConceptARC. We evaluate models under settings that vary the input modality (textual vs. visual), whether the model is permitted to use external Python tools, and, for reasoning models, the amount of reasoning effort. In addition to measuring output accuracy, we perform fine-grained evaluation of the natural-language rules that models generate to explain their solutions. This dual evaluation lets us assess whether models solve tasks using the abstractions ConceptARC was designed to elicit, rather than relying on surface-level patterns. Our results show that, while some models using text-based representations match human output accuracy, the best models' rules are often based on surface-level ``shortcuts'' and capture intended abstractions far less often than humans. Thus their capabilities for general abstract reasoning may be overestimated by evaluations based on accuracy alone. In the visual modality, AI models' output accuracy drops sharply, yet our rule-level analysis reveals that models might be underestimated, as they still exhibit a substantial share of rules that capture intended abstractions, but are often unable to correctly apply these rules. In short, our results show that models still lag humans in abstract reasoning, and that using accuracy alone to evaluate abstract reasoning on ARC-like tasks may overestimate abstract-reasoning capabilities in textual modalities and underestimate it in visual modalities. We believe that our evaluation framework offers a more faithful picture of multimodal models' abstract reasoning abilities and a more principled way to track progress toward human-like, abstraction-centered intelligence.