Cross-Question Method Reuse in Large Language Models: From Word-Level Prediction to Rational Logical-Layer Reasoning

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2509.05660
• Title: Cross-Question Method Reuse in Large Language Models: From Word-Level Prediction to Rational Logical-Layer Reasoning
• Author: Hong Su (School of Computer Science, Chengdu University of Information Technology)
• Classification: cs.CL (Computational Linguistics)
• Published Journal: Journal of LaTeX Class Files, Vol. 14, No. 8, August 2015
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.05660v2

Abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) have been widely applied to assist in solving various problems. Previous work proposed representing methods as pairings of problems and their corresponding solutions to enable method reuse. However, existing approaches typically require high similarity between problems. This paper extends the scope of method reuse to handle problems with lower similarity or implicit similarities. For problems similar in a general-specific sense, the authors propose first separating problems and solutions rather than directly inputting paired data to the LLM. The LLM is then guided to adapt solutions to new related problems, focusing on solution transfer rather than problem identification. Furthermore, the method extends to problems sharing only partial features or hidden characteristics. Experimental validation demonstrates that this scope-extended approach improves the probability of screening reusable solutions, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of cross-question method reuse.

Research Background and Motivation

Problem Definition

Traditional large language models are primarily trained at the word level, learning through predicting the next token or filling in missing tokens. This training approach primarily reflects statistical co-occurrence rather than higher-level logical reasoning, resembling intuition or pattern matching rather than rational decision-making.

Research Motivation

1. Limitations of Word-Level Reasoning: Current transformer-based LLMs struggle with method-level reasoning and tend to favor frequently occurring methods in training data, even when these are suboptimal.
2. Limitations of Method Reuse: Existing method reuse frameworks require high similarity between problems, limiting their applicability.
3. Need for Cross-Domain Knowledge Transfer: Humans can analogously apply solutions from one problem to seemingly unrelated new problems, but current LLMs lack this cross-question method reuse capability.

Core Challenges

How to enable LLMs to effectively reuse existing solutions even when problems have low similarity or no obvious associations.

Core Contributions

1. Extended Method Reuse Scope: Extends method reuse from high-similarity cases to general-specific mappings and feature-based hidden relationships.
2. Proposed Cross-Question Method Reuse Model:
   • Relational reuse: Handles general-specific and parallel relationships
   • Feature-based reuse: Supports partial feature matching and hidden characteristic identification
3. Introduced "Method of Methods" (MoM) Concept: Provides higher-level methods to verify, improve, and enhance the effectiveness of current applied methods.
4. Theoretical Framework: Elevates from word-level prediction to logical-layer reasoning, achieving rational rather than purely statistical solution application.

Methodology Details

Task Definition

Given a target problem Qt, in the absence of a direct solution, find reusable solutions from an existing method repository, even if the original problems of these methods have low similarity to the target problem or possess implicit relationships.

Model Architecture

1. Relational Method Reuse

General-Specific Methods: If two methods Ma and Mb solve problem sets Qma and Qmb respectively, and satisfy:

Qma ⊃ Qmb  (1)

then Ma is more general than Mb, enabling vertical reuse.

Parallel Methods: Two methods are parallel if and only if their problem sets are disjoint subsets of the same broader category:

Qma ∩ Qmb = ∅, Qma ⊂ Qg, Qmb ⊂ Qg  (2)

2. Feature-Based Method Reuse

Feature Space Definition: For problem Q, its features are defined as:

F(Q) ⊆ F, F(Q) = Fmeas(Q) ∪ Ftext(Q)  (3)

where Fmeas(Q) represents explicit numerical attributes and Ftext(Q) represents features extracted from text through learned encoder h(·).

Feature Similarity:

Simfeat(Qa, Qb) = S(F(Qa), F(Qb))  (5)

Reuse Condition:

Reusefeat(Qb; Sa) = {
    1, if Simfeat(Qa, Qb) ≥ τ and Valid(Sa, Qb) = 1
    0, otherwise
}  (6)

3. Global Methods

Global methods Gi = (Qgi, Sgi) possess broad applicability and can serve as universal program enhancements to improve reliability and consistency of method execution.

4. Method of Methods (MoM)

MoM is organized hierarchically by depth:

• M(0): Direct methods, Q ↦ S
• M(1): First-order methods, M(0) ↦ M(0)'
• M(i+1): (i+1)-order methods, M(i) ↦ M(i)'

Technical Innovations

1. Problem-Solution Separation Strategy: Rather than directly inputting problem-solution pairs to the LLM, first separate them and then guide the LLM to perform solution transfer.
2. Multi-Level Similarity Identification:
   • Explicit feature matching
   • Hidden characteristic inference
   • Overall method template reuse
3. Hierarchical Verification Mechanism: Ensures logical validity of solutions in new contexts through the Valid function.

Experimental Setup

Datasets

Experiments use two categories of test scenarios:

1. Relational Reuse Testing: Banana freshness judgment problem, reusing general methods for fruit freshness
2. Feature-Based Reuse Testing: Hard disk usage time reset problem, reusing MP3 file processing experience

Evaluation Metrics

• Cosine Similarity: Measures alignment between generated solutions and target methods
• Statistical Significance Testing: Uses independent samples t-test to evaluate differences between methods

Comparison Methods

1. RelaMethod vs CompareRela: Evaluates relational reuse effectiveness
2. featureMethd vs compareMP3Method: Evaluates feature-based reuse effectiveness

Implementation Details

• 20 rounds of testing per method
• Welch's t-test for statistical analysis
• Comparison limited to text segments relevant to target methods to reduce noise

Experimental Results

Main Results

Relational Reuse Experiment:

• RelaMethod average similarity: 0.4835 (SD: 0.0801)
• CompareRela average similarity: 0.2820 (SD: 0.0558)
• t-value: 9.23, p-value: 8.98×10^-11 (p < 0.05)
• Conclusion: RelaMethod significantly outperforms baseline method

Feature-Based Reuse Experiment:

• featureMethd average similarity: 0.2945 (SD: 0.0698)
• compareMP3Method average similarity: 0.3983 (SD: 0.0670)
• t-value: -4.80, p-value: 2.52×10^-5 (p < 0.05)
• Conclusion: Significant differences exist between the two methods

Comparative Analysis

Experimental Findings

1. Relational Reuse More Stable: Relational reuse based on structural connections demonstrates more stability than feature-based reuse relying on partial overlap.
2. Effectiveness of Explicit Separation: Explicitly prompting the LLM to generate problem-solution comparisons proves more effective than directly providing materials.
3. Statistical Significance: Relational reuse shows stronger statistical separation (t-value 9.23 vs 4.80), indicating more reliable effects.

Theoretical Analysis

Logical-Layer Reuse

Traditional LLMs learn distribution P(wt+1|w1,w2,...,wt) at the token level, primarily capturing statistical co-occurrence patterns. This framework achieves logical-layer reuse mapping through method representation M=(Q,S):

R: (Qa, Sa) → (Qb, Sa)  (15)

Rational Reuse

Unlike token probability-based selection, method reuse is based on logical applicability:

Preuse(Ss|Qt) ∝ Simlogic(Qt, Qs) · I[Ss valid]  (19)

ensuring reuse is based on logical transferability rather than statistical frequency.

Related Work

LLM Reasoning Research

• Chain-of-Thought Prompting: Improves reasoning performance by generating intermediate steps
• Self-Consistency: Enhances robustness through multi-path sampling
• Tree/Graph of Thought: Extends to more complex search structures

Method Representation and Reuse

• Symbolic AI: Decomposes knowledge into reusable components
• Program Synthesis: Reuses abstract operators to solve new tasks
• Case-Based Reasoning (CBR): Solves new problems through analogy

Transfer Learning and Meta-Reasoning

• Pre-trained Models: Task transfer capabilities of T5, GPT-4, etc.
• Retrieval-Augmented Prompting: Guides reasoning through retrieving similar examples
• Reflection Mechanisms: Iterative self-feedback improvement

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

1. The cross-question method reuse framework successfully extends LLM applicability, enabling handling of low-similarity problems.
2. Relational reuse demonstrates greater stability in handling general-specific dependencies, while feature-based reuse provides a complementary mechanism for handling implicit overlaps.
3. Structured problem-solution separation strategy significantly improves method reuse effectiveness.

Limitations

1. Limited Feature-Based Reuse Effectiveness: Feature-based reuse shows smaller improvements compared to relational reuse.
2. Verification Mechanism Dependency: Implementation of the Valid function may impact reuse effectiveness.
3. Computational Complexity: Similarity computation in large-scale feature spaces may be time-consuming.

Future Directions

1. Improve feature extraction and similarity computation methods
2. Develop more intelligent verification mechanisms
3. Extend to more complex multi-step problem-solving scenarios

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Strong Innovation: First systematic solution to method reuse for low-similarity problems in LLMs
2. Solid Theoretical Foundation: Provides theoretical framework from word-level prediction to logical-layer reasoning
3. Reasonable Experimental Design: Validates method effectiveness through concrete cases
4. High Practical Value: Offers new perspectives for practical LLM applications

Weaknesses

1. Limited Experimental Scale: Validation conducted only in two specific scenarios, lacking large-scale experiments
2. Vague Feature Definition: Feature space construction lacks systematic guidance
3. Computational Efficiency Not Evaluated: No analysis of computational overhead and scalability
4. Single Comparison Method: Lacks comparison with other advanced approaches

Impact

1. Theoretical Contribution: Provides new theoretical perspective for enhancing LLM reasoning capabilities
2. Practical Value: Applicable to real-world scenarios requiring cross-domain knowledge transfer
3. Inspirational: Provides valuable directions for subsequent research

Applicable Scenarios

1. Knowledge Transfer: Applying solutions from one domain to another
2. Novel Problem Solving: Finding analogous solutions when facing entirely new problems
3. Educational Support: Helping learners understand intrinsic connections between different problems
4. Expert Systems: Building intelligent systems capable of flexibly applying existing knowledge

References

1. Wei, J. et al. "Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models." NeurIPS 2022.
2. Wang, X. et al. "Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models." arXiv 2022.
3. Yao, S. et al. "Tree of thoughts: Deliberate problem solving with large language models." NeurIPS 2023.
4. Su, H. "Method-based reasoning for large language models: Extraction, reuse, and continuous improvement." arXiv 2025.

Overall Assessment: This paper proposes an innovative cross-question method reuse framework that successfully extends LLM applicability in low-similarity scenarios. While there is room for improvement in experimental scale and certain technical details, its theoretical contributions and practical value make it an important work in LLM reasoning research.