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

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.11916 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.11916/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Multimodal reasoning, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 5 of its 7 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 14 Nov 2025.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Multimodal reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/lr/multimodal-reasoning/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 5 of 5)

- [Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.11171/) (2022)
- [On Calibration of Modern Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.04599/) (2017)
- [Simple and Scalable Predictive Uncertainty Estimation using Deep Ensembles](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1612.01474/) (2016)
- [Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Prompting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.04388/) (2023)
- [Hallucination of Multimodal Large Language Models: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.18930/) (2024)

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

- [Mind's Eye: A Benchmark of Visual Abstraction, Transformation and Composition for Multimodal LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.16054/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

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.