A Survey of Inductive Reasoning for Large Language Models

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2510.10182
• Title: A Survey of Inductive Reasoning for Large Language Models
• Authors: Kedi Chen, Dezhao Ruan, Yuhao Dan, Yaoting Wang, Siyu Yan, Xuecheng Wu, Yinqi Zhang, Qin Chen, Jie Zhou, Liang He, Biqing Qi, Linyang Li, Qipeng Guo, Xiaoming Shi, Wei Zhang
• Classification: cs.CL cs.AI
• Publication Date: October 11, 2025 (arXiv submission)
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.10182v1

Abstract

Reasoning is an important task for large language models (LLMs). Among all reasoning paradigms, inductive reasoning is a fundamental type characterized by a thinking process from specific to general and non-uniqueness of answers. Inductive reasoning patterns are crucial for knowledge generalization, better align with human cognition, and represent a fundamental learning paradigm, thus attracting increasing attention. Despite the importance of inductive reasoning, there currently lacks a systematic summary. Therefore, this paper presents the first comprehensive survey of inductive reasoning for LLMs. First, methods for improving inductive reasoning are categorized into three main domains: post-training, test-time scaling, and data augmentation. Subsequently, current inductive reasoning benchmarks are summarized, and a unified sandbox-based evaluation method with an observation coverage metric is proposed. Finally, the sources of inductive capability are analyzed, and how simple model architectures and data facilitate inductive tasks are examined, providing a solid foundation for future research.

Research Background and Motivation

Problem Definition and Significance

1. Core Problem: Although inductive reasoning holds an important position in LLMs, there lacks systematic research summaries and methodological frameworks.
2. Significance:
   • Inductive reasoning is a fundamental cognitive ability to derive general principles from specific observations
   • Better aligns with human cognitive patterns and is key to knowledge generalization
   • Has broad applications in NLP downstream tasks and real-world scenarios
   • Unlike deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning answers possess non-uniqueness characteristics

Limitations of Existing Research

1. Research Bias: Previous work primarily focused on deductive reasoning (e.g., mathematical proofs, program verification) with insufficient attention to inductive reasoning
2. Lack of Systematicity: Absence of unified method classification and evaluation frameworks
3. Insufficient Theoretical Analysis: Inadequate analysis of inductive capability sources and influencing factors

Research Motivation

This paper aims to fill the gap in LLM inductive reasoning research by providing the first comprehensive survey framework, establishing a foundation for field development.

Core Contributions

1. First Comprehensive Survey: Provides the first systematic review of inductive reasoning for LLMs
2. Novel Classification System: Categorizes improvement methods into three major classes: post-training, test-time scaling, and data augmentation
3. Unified Evaluation Framework: Proposes a sandbox-based evaluation method and observation coverage (OC) metric
4. Theoretical Analysis: Deeply analyzes inductive capability sources and the role of simple architectures/data
5. Forward-Looking Perspective: Not only summarizes existing methods but also envisions future development directions

Method Details

Task Definition

Core characteristics of inductive reasoning tasks:

• Input: Concrete observational instances or cases
• Output: General principles or rules derived from observations
• Characteristics: Thinking process from specific to general with non-unique answers

Method Classification Framework

1. Post-training Methods

Synthetic Data Generation:

• LingR: Constructs linguistic rule instruction sets enabling models to learn step-by-step reasoning based on linguistic rules
• ItD: Leverages LLMs' deductive capabilities to generate data optimizing inductive ability
• CodeSeq: Constructs training sets for general formulas of numerical sequences

IRL-style Optimization:

• Designs reward models using inverse reinforcement learning (IRL) concepts
• RLHF process is essentially IRL, inferring latent reward functions through human feedback
• Prompt-OIRL: Trains reward models based on historical prompt experience

2. Test-time Scaling

Hypothesis Selection:

• MoC: Generates semantically non-redundant concept lists, generating hypotheses for each concept
• EPIC: Uses small LLMs to generate candidate encodings, filtering through adjustment mechanisms

Hypothesis Iteration:

• Three-step iterative hypothesis optimization: generate multiple hypotheses → evaluate coverage capability → refine based on feedback
• SSR: Iteratively optimizes candidate rules through execution feedback
• ARISE: Iteratively optimizes inductive rules for model training

Hypothesis Evolution:

• IncSchema: Queries LLMs in stages, progressively inducing general patterns
• HRI: Generates inductive meta-rules and matches with samples, evolving into first-order logic rules
• PRIMO: Progressive multi-stage open rule induction method

3. Data Augmentation

Manual Intervention:

• SS-VQ-VAE: Discovers new patterns relying on limited manual annotation information
• Importance of expert knowledge and manual annotation information

External Knowledge Retrieval:

• LLEGO: Integrates semantic prior knowledge from LLMs into genetic programming operations
• Utilizes parameter knowledge from other LLMs as supplementary information sources

Structured Signals:

• Leverages subgraph or contextual information providing local implicit signals
• QARR: Extracts open subgraphs of query entities for inductive reasoning
• REST: Deploys rule-induced subgraphs capturing local semantic patterns

Experimental Setup

Benchmark Datasets

The paper summarizes 17 major inductive reasoning benchmarks:

Evaluation Metrics

Traditional Evaluation:

• Accuracy (ACC), exact match, success rate, etc.

Newly Proposed Sandbox Evaluation:

• Observation Coverage (OC): Proportion of observations passing unit tests
• Provides finer-grained supervision signals

Experimental Results

Method Performance Analysis

Post-training Methods:

• Synthetic data methods significantly improve model performance on specific inductive tasks
• IRL-style optimization demonstrates advantages in handling non-unique answers

Test-time Scaling:

• Hypothesis iteration methods excel in complex reasoning chain tasks
• Hypothesis evolution methods capture more complex patterns

Data Augmentation:

• External knowledge retrieval shows significant effectiveness in knowledge-intensive tasks
• Structured signals play important roles in improving generalization capability

Key Findings

1. Importance of Inductive Heads: Inductive capability originates from inductive heads in attention mechanisms
2. Principle of Simplicity: Simple model architectures and data often facilitate inductive reasoning
3. Complementarity of Diverse Methods: Different method types show respective advantages in different scenarios

Related Work

Major Research Directions

1. Deductive Reasoning: Mathematical proofs, program verification, and other logical reasoning
2. Analogical Reasoning: Specific-to-specific reasoning based on similarity
3. In-context Learning: Pattern recognition based on examples

Unique Contributions of This Paper

• First systematic focus on inductive reasoning, an overlooked yet important field
• Provides a complete methodological framework and evaluation system
• Deeply analyzes theoretical foundations of inductive reasoning

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

1. Inductive reasoning is a fundamental capability of LLMs, crucial for knowledge generalization
2. The three improvement method categories each have distinct characteristics, requiring task-specific selection
3. Simplicity plays a key role in inductive reasoning
4. Unified evaluation frameworks facilitate field development

Limitations

1. Space Constraints: Many details remain undiscussed in the main text due to space limitations
2. Limited Research Volume: Relatively few studies on inductive reasoning make large-scale systematic surveys challenging
3. Theoretical Analysis Depth: Theoretical understanding of inductive mechanisms requires further deepening

Future Directions

1. Method Innovation: Hybrid schemes combining multiple methods
2. Evaluation Refinement: Developing more comprehensive evaluation benchmarks and metrics
3. Theoretical Deepening: Understanding neural mechanisms of inductive capability
4. Application Extension: Validating inductive reasoning methods in more practical scenarios

In-depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Pioneering Work: Fills the gap in LLM inductive reasoning research
2. Strong Systematicity: Provides complete classification framework and evaluation system
3. Forward-Looking Perspective: Reviews existing work while envisioning future development
4. High Practical Value: Provides researchers with clear research roadmaps
5. Theory and Practice Integration: Combines method summaries with theoretical analysis

Weaknesses

1. Limited Depth Analysis: As a survey paper, technical detail analysis of specific methods is relatively limited
2. Lack of Experimental Validation: Primarily method summaries without unified experimental comparisons
3. Weak Theoretical Foundation: Insufficient discussion of cognitive science and neuroscience foundations of inductive reasoning

Impact

1. Academic Value: Establishes research framework for emerging field, expected to become important reference
2. Practical Significance: Provides methodological guidance for industrial applications of inductive reasoning
3. Promotional Effect: Expected to inspire more researchers to focus on inductive reasoning field

Applicable Scenarios

1. Research Entry: Provides comprehensive overview for researchers entering the field
2. Method Selection: Offers guidance for method selection in practical applications
3. Future Research: Provides reference framework for determining research directions

References

The paper cites extensive related work, primarily including:

• Foundational LLM research (Zhao et al., 2023; Wei et al., 2021)
• Reasoning capability research (Huang and Chang, 2022; Plaat et al., 2024)
• Inductive reasoning theoretical foundations (Arthur, 1994; Heit, 2000)
• Specific methods and benchmarks (Chollet, 2019; Rule, 2020, etc.)

Overall Assessment: This is a high-quality survey paper that systematically reviews inductive reasoning for LLMs, an important yet overlooked research field. The paper's classification framework is clear, comprehensive in coverage, and holds significant value for advancing field development. While technical depth and experimental validation could be strengthened, its pioneering significance and academic value as the first systematic survey are undeniable.