Preni Golazizian, Elnaz Rahmati, Jackson Trager, Zhivar Sourati, Nona Ghazizadeh, Georgios Chochlakis, Jose J. Alcocer, Kerby Bennett, Aarya Vijay Devnani, Parsa Hejabi, Harry G. Muttram, Akshay Kiran Padte, Mehrshad Saadatinia, Chenhao Wu, Alireza Salkhordeh Ziabari, Michael Sierra-Arévalo, Nicholas Weller, Shrikanth Narayanan, Benjamin A.t. Graham, Morteza Dehghani. Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). 2026.

Zhivar Sourati, Zheng Wang, Marianne Menglin Liu, Yazhe Hu, Mengqing Guo, Sujeeth Bharadwaj, Kyu J. Han, Tao Sheng, Sujith Ravi, Morteza Dehghani, Dan Roth. Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). 2026.

While multi-modal large language models (MLLMs) have shown significant progress across popular visual reasoning benchmarks, whether they possess abstract visual reasoning abilities remains an open question. Similar to the Sudoku puzzles, abstract visual reasoning (AVR) problems require finding high-level patterns (e.g., repetition constraints on numbers) that control the input shapes (e.g., digits) in a specific task configuration (e.g., matrix). However, existing AVR benchmarks only consider a limited set of patterns (addition, conjunction), input shapes (rectangle, square), and task configurations (3 × 3 matrices). And they fail to capture all abstract reasoning patterns in human cognition necessary for addressing real-world tasks, such as geometric properties and object boundary understanding in real-world navigation. To evaluate MLLMs’ AVR abilities systematically, we introduce MARVEL founded on the core knowledge system in human cognition, a multi-dimensional AVR benchmark with 770 puzzles composed of six core knowledge patterns, geometric and abstract shapes, and five different task configurations. To inspect whether the model performance is grounded in perception or reasoning, MARVEL complements the standard AVR question with perception questions in a hierarchical evaluation framework. We conduct comprehensive experiments on MARVEL with ten representative MLLMs in zero-shot and few-shot settings. Our experiments reveal that all MLLMs show near-random performance on MARVEL, with significant performance gaps (40%) compared to humans across all patterns and task configurations. Further analysis of perception questions reveals that MLLMs struggle to comprehend the visual features (near-random performance). Although closed-source MLLMs, such as GPT-4V, show a promising understanding of reasoning patterns (on par with humans) after adding textual descriptions, this advantage is hindered by their weak perception abilities. We release our entirecode and dataset at https://github.com/1171-jpg/MARVEL_AVR.

Abstract As a core cognitive skill that enables the transferability of information across domains, analogical reasoning has been extensively studied for both humans and computational models. However, while cognitive theories of analogy often focus on narratives and study the distinction between surface, relational, and system similarities, existing work in natural language processing has a narrower focus as far as relational analogies between word pairs. This gap brings a natural question: can state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) detect system analogies between narratives? To gain insight into this question and extend word-based relational analogies to relational system analogies, we devise a comprehensive computational framework that operationalizes dominant theories of analogy, using narrative elements to create surface and system mappings. Leveraging the interplay between these mappings, we create a binary task and benchmark for Analogical Reasoning on Narratives (ARN), covering four categories of far (cross-domain)/near (within-domain) analogies and disanalogies. We show that while all LLMs can largely recognize near analogies, even the largest ones struggle with far analogies in a zero-shot setting, with GPT4.0 scoring below random. Guiding the models through solved examples and Chain-of-Thought reasoning enhances their analogical reasoning ability. Yet, since even in the few-shot setting, the best model only performs halfway between random and humans, ARN opens exciting directions for computational analogical reasoners.

The success of language models has inspired the NLP community to attend to tasks that require implicit and complex reasoning, relying on human-like commonsense mechanisms.While such vertical thinking tasks have been relatively popular, lateral thinking puzzles have received little attention.To bridge this gap, we devise BRAINTEASER: a multiple-choice Question Answering task designed to test the model's ability to exhibit lateral thinking and defy default commonsense associations.We design a three-step procedure for creating the first lateral thinking benchmark, consisting of data collection, distractor generation, and generation of reconstruction examples, leading to 1,100 puzzles with high-quality annotations.To assess the consistency of lateral reasoning by models, we enrich BRAINTEASER based on a semantic and contextual reconstruction of its questions.Our experiments with state-ofthe-art instruction-and commonsense language models reveal a significant gap between human and model performance, which is further widened when consistency across reconstruction formats is considered.We make all of our code and data available to stimulate work on developing and evaluating lateral thinking models.

The ease and speed of spreading misinformation and propaganda on the Web motivate the need to develop trustworthy technology for detecting fallacies in natural language arguments. However, state-of-the-art language modeling methods exhibit a lack of robustness on tasks like logical fallacy classification that require complex reasoning. In this paper, we propose a Case-Based Reasoning method that classifies new cases of logical fallacy by language-modeling-driven retrieval and adaptation of historical cases. We design four complementary strategies to enrich input representation for our model, based on external information about goals, explanations, counterarguments, and argument structure. Our experiments in in-domain and out-of-domain settings indicate that Case-Based Reasoning improves the accuracy and generalizability of language models. Our ablation studies suggest that representations of similar cases have a strong impact on the model performance, that models perform well with fewer retrieved cases, and that the size of the case database has a negligible effect on the performance. Finally, we dive deeper into the relationship between the properties of the retrieved cases and the model performance.