# An Incomplete Loop: Deductive, Inductive, and Abductive Reasoning in Language Models

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.03028 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.03028/

## Key facts

- Cited by 7 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 2 of its 40 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 3 Apr 2024.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/lr/reasoning-benchmarks-and-evaluation/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 2 of 2)

- [Finetuned Language Models Are Zero-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.01652/) (2021)
- [Multitask Prompted Training Enables Zero-Shot Task Generalization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.08207/) (2021)

## Built on by (most cited first, 7 of 7)

- [The Curse of CoT: On the Limitations of Chain-of-Thought in In-Context Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.05081/) (2025)
- [Social Genome: Grounded Social Reasoning Abilities of Multimodal Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.15109/) (2025)
- [LogiDynamics: Unraveling the Dynamics of Inductive, Abductive and Deductive Logical Inferences in LLM Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.11176/) (2025)
- [Controllable Logical Hypothesis Generation for Abductive Reasoning in Knowledge Graphs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.20948/) (2025)
- [Unifying Deductive and Abductive Reasoning in Knowledge Graphs with Masked Diffusion Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.11462/) (2025)
- [From Reasoning to Learning: A Survey on Hypothesis Discovery and Rule Learning with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.21935/) (2025)
- [CEDAR-GRPO: Process-Aware Reinforcement Learning for General Abductive Reasoning in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.14791/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Modern language models (LMs) can learn to perform new tasks in different ways: in instruction following, the target task is described explicitly in natural language; in few-shot prompting, the task is specified implicitly with a small number of examples; in instruction inference, LMs are presented with in-context examples and are then prompted to generate a natural language task description before making predictions. Each of these procedures may be thought of as invoking a different form of reasoning: instruction following involves deductive reasoning, few-shot prompting involves inductive reasoning, and instruction inference involves abductive reasoning. How do these different capabilities relate? Across four LMs (from the gpt and llama families) and two learning problems (involving arithmetic functions and machine translation) we find a strong dissociation between the different types of reasoning: LMs can sometimes learn effectively from few-shot prompts even when they are unable to explain their own prediction rules; conversely, they sometimes infer useful task descriptions while completely failing to learn from human-generated descriptions of the same task. Our results highlight the non-systematic nature of reasoning even in some of today's largest LMs, and underscore the fact that very different learning mechanisms may be invoked by seemingly similar prompting procedures.