Papers › Abstract Reasoning with Distracting Features

Abstract Reasoning with Distracting Features

2 Dec 2019NeurIPS 2019 12arXiv:1912.00569archive 2025-07-28

Kecheng Zheng, Zheng-Jun Zha, Wei Wei

Abstraction reasoning is a long-standing challenge in artificial intelligence. Recent studies suggest that many of the deep architectures that have triumphed over other domains failed to work well in abstract reasoning. In this paper, we first illustrate that one of the main challenges in such a reasoning task is the presence of distracting features, which requires the learning algorithm to leverage counterevidence and to reject any of the false hypotheses in order to learn the true patterns. We later show that carefully designed learning trajectory over different categories of training data can effectively boost learning performance by mitigating the impacts of distracting features. Inspired by this fact, we propose feature robust abstract reasoning (FRAR) model, which consists of a reinforcement learning based teacher network to determine the sequence of training and a student network for predictions. Experimental results demonstrated strong improvements over baseline algorithms and we are able to beat the state-of-the-art models by 18.7% in the RAVEN dataset and 13.3% in the PGM dataset.

PaperPDFConference PDFCode

In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.

Code

zkcys001/distracting_feature officialmentioned in papermentioned on GitHubpytorch report

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.

Tasks

Reinforcement Learning

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Methods

PGM

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections