Vision-Language Models (VLMs) have made rapid progress in reasoning across visual and textual data. While VLMs perform well on vision tasks that they are trained on, our results highlight key challenges in abstract pattern recognition. We present GlyphPattern, a 954 item dataset that pairs 318 human-written descriptions of visual patterns from 40 writing systems with three visual presentation styles.GlyphPattern evaluates abstract pattern recognition in VLMs, requiring models to understand and judge natural language descriptions of visual patterns. GlyphPattern patterns are drawn from a large-scale cognitive science investigation of human writing systems; as a result, they are rich in spatial reference and compositionality. Our experiments show that GlyphPattern is challenging for state-of-the-art VLMs (GPT-4o achieves only 55% accuracy), with marginal gains from few-shot prompting. Our detailed analysis reveals errors at multiple levels, including visual processing, natural language understanding, and pattern generalization.

Existing benchmarks for frontier models often test specialized, “PhD-level” knowledge that is difficult for non-experts to grasp. In contrast, we present a benchmark with 613 problems based on the NPR Sunday Puzzle Challenge that requires only general knowledge. Our benchmark is challenging for both humans and models; however correct solutions are easy to verify, and models’ mistakes are easy to spot. As LLMs are more widely deployed in society, we believe it is useful to develop benchmarks for frontier models that humans can understand without the need for deep domain expertise.Our work reveals capability gaps that are not evident in existing benchmarks: OpenAI o1 significantly outperforms other reasoning models on our benchmark, despite being on par with other models when tested on benchmarks that test specialized knowledge. Furthermore, our analysis of reasoning outputs uncovers new kinds of failures. DeepSeek R1, for instance, often concedes with “I give up” before providing an answer that it knows is wrong. R1 can also be remarkably “uncertain” in its output and in rare cases, it does not “finish thinking,” which suggests the need for techniques to “wrap up” before the context window limit is reached. We also quantify the effectiveness of reasoning longer to identify the point beyond which more reasoning is unlikely to improve accuracy on our benchmark.

Although LLMs are increasing the productivity of professional programmers, existing work shows that beginners struggle to prompt LLMs to solve text-to-code tasks (Nguyen et al., 2024; Prather et al., 2024b; Mordechai et al., 2024). Why is this the case? This paper explores two competing hypotheses about the cause of student-LLM miscommunication: (1) students simply lack the technical vocabulary needed to write good prompts, and (2) students do not understand the extent of information that LLMs need to solve code generation tasks. We study (1) with a causal intervention experiment on technical vocabulary and (2) by analyzing graphs that abstract how students edit prompts and the different failures that they encounter. We find that substance beats style: a poor grasp of technical vocabulary is merely correlated with prompt failure; that the information content of prompts predicts success; that students get stuck making trivial edits; and more. Our findings have implications for the use of LLMs in programming education, and for efforts to make computing more accessible with LLMs.