# Impact of Noise on LLM-Models Performance in Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus (ARC) Tasks with Model Temperature Considerations

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.15903 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.15903/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 3 of its 9 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 22 Apr 2025.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/lr/reasoning-benchmarks-and-evaluation/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 3 of 3)

- [On the Measure of Intelligence](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1911.01547/) (2019)
- [The ConceptARC Benchmark: Evaluating Understanding and Generalization in the ARC Domain](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.07141/) (2023)
- [Comparing Humans, GPT-4, and GPT-4V On Abstraction and Reasoning Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.09247/) (2023)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [LLM Performance for Code Generation on Noisy Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.23598/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) have generated growing interest in their structured reasoning capabilities, particularly in tasks involving abstraction and pattern recognition. The Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus (ARC) benchmark plays a crucial role in evaluating these capabilities by testing how well AI models generalize to novel problems. While GPT-4o demonstrates strong performance by solving all ARC tasks under zero-noise conditions, other models like DeepSeek R1 and LLaMA 3.2 fail to solve any, suggesting limitations in their ability to reason beyond simple pattern matching. To explore this gap, we systematically evaluate these models across different noise levels and temperature settings. Our results reveal that the introduction of noise consistently impairs model performance, regardless of architecture. This decline highlights a shared vulnerability: current LLMs, despite showing signs of abstract reasoning, remain highly sensitive to input perturbations. Such fragility raises concerns about their real-world applicability, where noise and uncertainty are common. By comparing how different model architectures respond to these challenges, we offer insights into the structural weaknesses of modern LLMs in reasoning tasks. This work underscores the need for developing more robust and adaptable AI systems capable of handling the ambiguity and variability inherent in real-world scenarios. Our findings aim to guide future research toward enhancing model generalization, robustness, and alignment with human-like cognitive flexibility.