Procedural Refinement by LLM-driven Algorithmic Debugging for ARC-AGI-2
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
In high-complexity abstract reasoning, a system must infer a latent rule from a few examples or structured observations and apply it to unseen instances. LLMs can express such rules as programs, but ordinary conversation-based refinement is largely outcome-level: it observes that an answer or output is wrong without formally re-checking which abstraction, relation, or transformation justified that outcome. We propose Abduction-Based Procedural Refinement (ABPR), a neuro-symbolic refinement approach that couples an LLM with a Prolog meta-interpreter. ABPR treats each candidate program as an executable declarative hypothesis of the latent rule and reifies its SLD goal--subgoal resolution into compact proof-tree-style derivations, following Shapiro's algorithmic program debugging (APD). In this view, refinement is not merely code-level debugging, but semantic re-checking of the model's hypothesised rule. We evaluate ABPR primarily on ARC-AGI-2, a challenging few-shot abstract rule induction benchmark over grid transformations. ABPR with Gemini-3-Flash achieves 56.67% Pass@2, while GPT-5.5 xHigh with ABPR reaches 98.33% Pass@2 on the public evaluation set. Supplementary experiments on fill-in-the-blank I-RAVEN-X and A-I-RAVEN adaptations provide evidence that the same trace-guided framework extends beyond ARC-specific grid tasks to RAVEN-style relational and analogical abstraction. Repeated-run and sensitivity analyses show that parallel trace-guided search reduces stochastic variance as search breadth and total search depth increase.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 24 of its 81 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 20 Mar 2026.
Builds on
24 of 81 references.
References · 24
- 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,199
- 2022Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 12,302
- 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 9,743
- 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,053
- 2023Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Toolscited by 4,072
- 2023Let's Verify Step by Stepcited by 3,598
- 2023Tree of Thoughts: Deliberate Problem Solving with Large Language Modelscited by 3,155
- 2019The Curious Case of Neural Text Degenerationcited by 2,881
- 2023Large Language Models Cannot Self-Correct Reasoning Yetcited by 965
- 2023CRITIC: Large Language Models Can Self-Correct with Tool-Interactive Critiquingcited by 751
- 2019Neural Probabilistic Logic Programming in DeepProbLogcited by 389
- 2022Self-critiquing models for assisting human evaluatorscited by 372
12 more
- 2020Neurosymbolic AI: The 3rd Wavecited by 253
- 2024When Can LLMs Actually Correct Their Own Mistakes? A Critical Survey of Self-Correction of LLMscited by 230
- 2020Logic Tensor Networkscited by 197
- 2025ARC-AGI-2: A New Challenge for Frontier AI Reasoning Systemscited by 171
- 2024Code Generation with AlphaCodium: From Prompt Engineering to Flow Engineeringcited by 100
- 2022Automated Repair of Programs from Large Language Modelscited by 71
- 2025Neuro-Symbolic Artificial Intelligence: Towards Improving the Reasoning Abilities of Large Language Modelscited by 19
- 2024Counterexample Guided Program Repair Using Zero-Shot Learning and MaxSAT-based Fault Localizationcited by 8
- 2025The Debugging Decay Index: Rethinking Debugging Strategies for Code LLMscited by 5
- 2024A-I-RAVEN and I-RAVEN-Mesh: Two New Benchmarks for Abstract Visual Reasoningcited by 4
- 2025I-RAVEN-X: Benchmarking Generalization and Robustness of Analogical and Mathematical Reasoning in Large Language and Reasoning Modelscited by 4
- 2025Studying and Understanding the Effectiveness and Failures of Conversational LLM-Based Repaircited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.
2 papers.