An Analysis of Architectural Impact on LLM-based Abstract Visual Reasoning: A Systematic Benchmark on RAVEN-FAIR

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2511.11916v1
• Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2025 22:50:22 GMT
• Title: An Analysis of Architectural Impact on LLM-based Abstract Visual Reasoning: A Systematic Benchmark on RAVEN-FAIR
• Authors: Sinan Urgun, Seçkin Arı,
• Abstract summary: GPT-4.1-Mini consistently achieved the highest overall accuracy across all architectures.<n>Each model exhibited distinct sensitivity patterns to architectural design, underscoring that reasoning effectiveness remains model-specific.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: This study aims to systematically evaluate the performance of large language models (LLMs) in abstract visual reasoning problems. We examined four LLM models (GPT-4.1-Mini, Claude-3.5-Haiku, Gemini-1.5-Flash, Llama-3.3-70b) utilizing four different reasoning architectures (single-shot, embedding-controlled repetition, self-reflection, and multi-agent) on the RAVEN-FAIR dataset. Visual responses generated through a three-stage process (JSON extraction, LLM reasoning, and Tool Function) were evaluated using SSIM and LPIPS metrics; Chain-of-Thought scores and error types (semantic hallucination, numeric misperception) were analyzed. Results demonstrate that GPT-4.1-Mini consistently achieved the highest overall accuracy across all architectures, indicating a strong reasoning capability. While the multi-agent architecture occasionally altered semantic and numeric balance across models, these effects were not uniformly beneficial. Instead, each model exhibited distinct sensitivity patterns to architectural design, underscoring that reasoning effectiveness remains model-specific. Variations in response coverage further emerged as a confounding factor that complicates direct cross-architecture comparison. To estimate the upper-bound performance of each configuration, we report the best of five independent runs, representing a best-case scenario rather than an averaged outcome. This multi-run strategy aligns with recent recommendations, which emphasize that single-run evaluations are fragile and may lead to unreliable conclusions.

Related papers

• Task Complexity Matters: An Empirical Study of Reasoning in LLMs for Sentiment Analysis [2.1036545320600095]
  Large language models (LLMs) with reasoning capabilities have fueled a compelling narrative that reasoning universally improves performance across language tasks.<n>We test this claim through a comprehensive evaluation of 504 configurations across seven model families.<n>Our findings reveal that reasoning effectiveness is strongly task-dependent, challenging prevailing assumptions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-27T14:49:05Z)
• One Model to Critique Them All: Rewarding Agentic Tool-Use via Efficient Reasoning [54.580646706013965]
  Reward models (RMs) play a critical role in aligning large language models with human preferences.<n>We introduce ToolRM, a family of lightweight generative RMs tailored for general tool-use scenarios.<n>To build these models, we propose a novel pipeline that constructs pairwise preference data using rule-based scoring and multidimensional sampling.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-30T06:08:27Z)
• Demystifying Network Foundation Models [14.775836458250799]
  This work presents a systematic investigation into the latent knowledge encoded within Network Foundation Models (NFMs)<n>We evaluate four state-of-the-art NFMs, revealing that they all exhibit significant anisotropy, inconsistent feature sensitivity patterns.<n>Our work identifies numerous limitations across all models and demonstrates that addressing them can significantly improve model performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-27T03:53:46Z)
• Phi-4-reasoning Technical Report [42.508165017775]
  We introduce Phi-4-reasoning, a 14-billion parameter reasoning model that achieves strong performance on complex reasoning tasks.<n>We develop Phi-4-reasoning-plus, a variant enhanced through a short phase of outcome-based reinforcement learning.<n>Both models outperform significantly larger open-weight models such as DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-70B model and approach the performance levels of full DeepSeek-R1 model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-30T05:05:09Z)
• VLRMBench: A Comprehensive and Challenging Benchmark for Vision-Language Reward Models [40.87249469370042]
  Vision-language models (VLRMs) have become increasingly pivotal in the reasoning process.<n>Existing benchmarks for vision-language RMs (VLRMs) typically assess only a single aspect of their capabilities.<n>We propose a comprehensive and challenging benchmark, dubbed as VLRMBench, encompassing 12,634 questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-10T15:52:57Z)
• VOILA: Evaluation of MLLMs For Perceptual Understanding and Analogical Reasoning [63.0285363282581]
  Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have become a powerful tool for integrating visual and textual information.<n>We introduce VOILA, a benchmark designed to evaluate MLLMs' perceptual understanding and abstract relational reasoning.<n>We reveal that current MLLMs struggle to comprehend inter-image relationships and exhibit limited capabilities in high-level relational reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-25T23:36:19Z)
• SPARC: Score Prompting and Adaptive Fusion for Zero-Shot Multi-Label Recognition in Vision-Language Models [74.40683913645731]
  Zero-shot multi-label recognition (MLR) with Vision-Language Models (VLMs) faces significant challenges without training data, model tuning, or architectural modifications.<n>Our work proposes a novel solution treating VLMs as black boxes, leveraging scores without training data or ground truth.<n>Analysis of these prompt scores reveals VLM biases and AND''/OR' signal ambiguities, notably that maximum scores are surprisingly suboptimal compared to second-highest scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-24T07:15:05Z)
• Self-Rationalization in the Wild: A Large Scale Out-of-Distribution Evaluation on NLI-related tasks [59.47851630504264]
  Free-text explanations are expressive and easy to understand, but many datasets lack annotated explanation data.<n>We fine-tune T5-Large and OLMo-7B models and assess the impact of fine-tuning data quality, the number of fine-tuning samples, and few-shot selection methods.<n>The models are evaluated on 19 diverse OOD datasets across three tasks: natural language inference (NLI), fact-checking, and hallucination detection in abstractive summarization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-07T10:01:32Z)
• A NotSo Simple Way to Beat Simple Bench [0.0]
  This paper presents a novel framework for enhancing reasoning capabilities in large language models (LLMs)<n>We propose a multi-step prompting strategy coupled with global consistency checks to improve model accuracy and robustness.<n>Our results reveal model-specific strengths: Claude excels in maintaining logical consistency, while GPT-4o exhibits exploratory creativity but struggles with ambiguous prompts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-12T16:04:31Z)
• A Comprehensive Evaluation and Analysis Study for Chinese Spelling Check [53.152011258252315]
  We show that using phonetic and graphic information reasonably is effective for Chinese Spelling Check. Models are sensitive to the error distribution of the test set, which reflects the shortcomings of models. The commonly used benchmark, SIGHAN, can not reliably evaluate models' performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-25T17:02:38Z)
• Revisiting the Evaluation of Image Synthesis with GANs [55.72247435112475]
  This study presents an empirical investigation into the evaluation of synthesis performance, with generative adversarial networks (GANs) as a representative of generative models. In particular, we make in-depth analyses of various factors, including how to represent a data point in the representation space, how to calculate a fair distance using selected samples, and how many instances to use from each set.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-04T17:54:32Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.