Language Models Do Not Follow Occam's Razor: A Benchmark for Inductive and Abductive Reasoning

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2509.03345v1
• Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2025 14:22:42 GMT
• Title: Language Models Do Not Follow Occam's Razor: A Benchmark for Inductive and Abductive Reasoning
• Authors: Yunxin Sun, Abulhair Saparov,
• Abstract summary: This work focuses on evaluating large language models' inductive and abductive reasoning capabilities.<n>We introduce a programmable and synthetic dataset, InAbHyD, where each reasoning example consists of an incomplete world model and a set of observations.<n>We propose a new metric to evaluate the quality of hypotheses based on Occam's Razor.
• Score: 6.06071622429429
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Reasoning is a core capability in artificial intelligence systems, for which large language models (LLMs) have recently shown remarkable progress. However, most work focuses exclusively on deductive reasoning, which is problematic since other types of reasoning are also essential in solving real-world problems, and they are less explored. This work focuses on evaluating LLMs' inductive and abductive reasoning capabilities. We introduce a programmable and synthetic dataset, InAbHyD (pronounced in-a-bid), where each reasoning example consists of an incomplete world model and a set of observations. The task for the intelligent agent is to produce hypotheses to explain observations under the incomplete world model to solve each reasoning example. We propose a new metric to evaluate the quality of hypotheses based on Occam's Razor. We evaluate and analyze some state-of-the-art LLMs. Our analysis shows that LLMs can perform inductive and abductive reasoning in simple scenarios, but struggle with complex world models and producing high-quality hypotheses, even with popular reasoning-enhancing techniques such as in-context learning and RLVR.

Related papers

• A Survey of Inductive Reasoning for Large Language Models [55.23215679173251]
  The inductive mode is crucial for knowledge generalization and aligns better with human cognition.<n>Despite the importance of inductive reasoning, there is no systematic summary of it.<n>This paper presents the first comprehensive survey of inductive reasoning for large language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-11T11:45:38Z)
• Evaluating the Logical Reasoning Abilities of Large Reasoning Models [15.009205651973666]
  We introduce LogiEval, a benchmark for evaluating logical reasoning in large reasoning models.<n>LogiEval spans diverse reasoning types (deductive, inductive, analogical, and abductive) and task formats (e.g., logical sequence, argument analysis)<n>Our experiments demonstrate that modern reasoning models excel at 4-choice argument analysis problems and analogical reasoning, surpassing human performance.<n>Our analysis reveals that human performance does not mirror model failure distributions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-17T05:36:14Z)
• InductionBench: LLMs Fail in the Simplest Complexity Class [53.70978746199222]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable improvements in reasoning.<n>Inductive reasoning, where one infers the underlying rules from observed data, remains less explored.<n>We introduce InductionBench, a new benchmark designed to evaluate the inductive reasoning ability of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-20T03:48:00Z)
• Hypothesis-Driven Theory-of-Mind Reasoning for Large Language Models [76.6028674686018]
  We introduce thought-tracing, an inference-time reasoning algorithm to trace the mental states of agents.<n>Our algorithm is modeled after the Bayesian theory-of-mind framework.<n>We evaluate thought-tracing on diverse theory-of-mind benchmarks, demonstrating significant performance improvements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-17T15:08:50Z)
• Logical Reasoning in Large Language Models: A Survey [17.06712393613964]
  This survey synthesizes recent advancements in logical reasoning in large language models (LLMs)<n>It outlines the scope of logical reasoning in LLMs, its theoretical foundations, and the benchmarks used to evaluate reasoning proficiency.<n>The review concludes with future directions, emphasizing the need for further exploration to strengthen logical reasoning in AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-13T09:19:14Z)
• JustLogic: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Evaluating Deductive Reasoning in Large Language Models [51.99046112135311]
  We introduce JustLogic, a synthetically generated deductive reasoning benchmark for rigorous evaluation of Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>JustLogic is highly complex, capable of generating a diverse range of linguistic patterns, vocabulary, and argument structures.<n>Our experimental results reveal that (i) state-of-the-art (SOTA) reasoning LLMs perform on par or better than the human average but significantly worse than the human ceiling.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-24T15:49:10Z)
• MIRAGE: Evaluating and Explaining Inductive Reasoning Process in Language Models [19.81485079689837]
  We evaluate large language models' capabilities in inductive and deductive stages.<n>We find that the models tend to consistently conduct correct deduction without correct inductive rules.<n>In the inductive reasoning process, the model tends to focus on observed facts that are close to the current test example in feature space.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-12T14:12:36Z)
• A Closer Look at the Self-Verification Abilities of Large Language Models in Logical Reasoning [73.77088902676306]
  We take a closer look at the self-verification abilities of large language models (LLMs) in the context of logical reasoning. Our main findings suggest that existing LLMs could struggle to identify fallacious reasoning steps accurately and may fall short of guaranteeing the validity of self-verification methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-14T07:13:10Z)
• Towards LogiGLUE: A Brief Survey and A Benchmark for Analyzing Logical Reasoning Capabilities of Language Models [56.34029644009297]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated the ability to overcome various limitations of formal Knowledge Representation (KR) systems. LLMs excel most in abductive reasoning, followed by deductive reasoning, while they are least effective at inductive reasoning. We study single-task training, multi-task training, and "chain-of-thought" knowledge distillation fine-tuning technique to assess the performance of model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-02T01:00:50Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.