Beyond Either-Or Reasoning: Transduction and Induction as Cooperative Problem-Solving Paradigms
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Traditionally, in Programming-by-example (PBE) the goal is to synthesize a program from a small set of input-output examples. Lately, PBE has gained traction as a few-shot reasoning benchmark, relaxing the requirement to produce a program artifact altogether which allows transductive methods to directly the missing output sample. Transduction and induction are complementary reasoning modes--where induction derives general rules from examples, transduction leverages the examples directly to infer specific outputs without intermediate generalization. Yet existing approaches either treat them as mutually exclusive or couple them in hybrid structures where one paradigm dictates a fixed trajectory for the other -- undermining the latter's reasoning potential and creating cascading errors. We move away from these hierarchical models and introduce cooperative transductive-inductive problem solving: by interleaving both reasoning modes and ensuring neither unconditionally dominates the other, we preserve the search autonomy and reasoning capacity of each paradigm. We instantiate this concept in TIIPS. Across three PBE domains, TIIPS consistently outperforms state-of-the-art baselines and generates programs that more closely mirror ground-truth trajectories in both syntax and semantics, indicating a better match to the intended program behavior. Our findings highlight cooperative reasoning as a promising new direction for harnessing the full power of symbolic, inductive and neural, transductive reasoning.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 24 of its 38 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 20 May 2025.
Builds on
24 of 38 references.
References · 24
- 2023Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedbackcited by 3,317
- 2019The Neuro-Symbolic Concept Learner: Interpreting Scenes, Words, and Sentences From Natural Supervisioncited by 369
- 2023Is Self-Repair a Silver Bullet for Code Generation?cited by 191
- 2023Planning with Large Language Models for Code Generationcited by 179
- 2023ADaPT: As-Needed Decomposition and Planning with Language Modelscited by 172
- 2016DeepCoder: Learning to Write Programscited by 145
- 2017RobustFill: Neural Program Learning under Noisy I/Ocited by 124
- 2023Hypothesis Search: Inductive Reasoning with Language Modelscited by 119
- 2024ARC Prize 2024: Technical Reportcited by 103
- 2019Write, Execute, Assess: Program Synthesis with a REPLcited by 92
- 2023Phenomenal Yet Puzzling: Testing Inductive Reasoning Capabilities of Language Models with Hypothesis Refinementcited by 89
- 2020Compositional Generalization via Neural-Symbolic Stack Machinescited by 80
12 more
- 2023Compositional Generalization from First Principlescited by 62
- 2024Combining Induction and Transduction for Abstract Reasoningcited by 53
- 2019Learning to Infer Program Sketchescited by 44
- 2024Is Programming by Example solved by LLMs?cited by 27
- 2024Doing Experiments and Revising Rules with Natural Language and Probabilistic Reasoningcited by 23
- 2020Latent Programmer: Discrete Latent Codes for Program Synthesiscited by 18
- 2023ExeDec: Execution Decomposition for Compositional Generalization in Neural Program Synthesiscited by 17
- 2025Building Intelligent Agents with Neuro-Symbolic Conceptscited by 10
- 2023A Divide-Align-Conquer Strategy for Program Synthesiscited by 7
- 2023LambdaBeam: Neural Program Search with Higher-Order Functions and Lambdascited by 6
- 2025Generating Planning Feedback for Open-Ended Programming Exercises with LLMscited by 4
- 2025Shedding Light in Task Decomposition in Program Synthesis: The Driving Force of the Synthesizer Modelcited by 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.