Programming by Backprop: An Instruction is Worth 100 Examples When Finetuning LLMs
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Large language models (LLMs) are typically trained to acquire behaviours from demonstrations or experience, yet much of their training data is declarative: instructions, rules, and descriptions that specify behaviours without showing how to execute them. We introduce Programming by Backprop (PBB): a training regime that enables LLMs to acquire procedural knowledge (i.e., reusable behaviours) from declarative instructions encountered during training. With PBB, instructions in training data provide an opportunity to `program' specific behaviours into model weights. The core principle underpinning PBB is the separation of learning how instructions map to behaviour from internalising new instructions. We devise two distinct PBB curricula that leverage this principle. Through controlled experiments across two domains (algorithmic execution from Python source code and text generation from context-free grammars), we demonstrate the benefit of these curricula over training on a homogeneous data mixture. Crucially, PBB is highly sample efficient, with a single instruction substituting for up to 100 execution examples. Though execution of instructions in training data remains less reliable than when instructions are given in-context, our results demonstrate that procedural knowledge can be noisily `programmed' into LLMs through PBB, with important implications for data curation and safety.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 21 of its 34 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 23 Jun 2025.
Builds on
21 of 34 references.
References · 21
- 2024DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Modelscited by 9,379
- 2022Program of Thoughts Prompting: Disentangling Computation from Reasoning for Numerical Reasoning Taskscited by 1,076
- 2022STaR: Bootstrapping Reasoning With Reasoningcited by 940
- 2022In-context Reinforcement Learning with Algorithm Distillationcited by 190
- 2023Physics of Language Models: Part 3.2, Knowledge Manipulationcited by 143
- 2023Chain of Code: Reasoning with a Language Model-Augmented Code Emulatorcited by 123
- 2014Learning to Executecited by 106
- 2024Arithmetic Without Algorithms: Language Models Solve Math With a Bag of Heuristicscited by 97
- 2025Tell me about yourself: LLMs are aware of their learned behaviorscited by 91
- 2024Reuse, Don't Retrain: A Recipe for Continued Pretraining of Language Modelscited by 72
- 2019Learning to Infer and Execute 3D Shape Programscited by 68
- 2024Investigating Continual Pretraining in Large Language Models: Insights and Implicationscited by 57
9 more
- 2025On the generalization of language models from in-context learning and finetuning: a controlled studycited by 40
- 2020Neural Execution Engines: Learning to Execute Subroutinescited by 36
- 2024How Does Code Pretraining Affect Language Model Task Performance?cited by 28
- 2024Do Large Language Models Perform Latent Multi-Hop Reasoning without Exploiting Shortcuts?cited by 28
- 2021Dynamic Inference with Neural Interpreterscited by 24
- 2025How Do LLMs Acquire New Knowledge? A Knowledge Circuits Perspective on Continual Pre-Trainingcited by 23
- 2024Towards Effective and Efficient Continual Pre-training of Large Language Modelscited by 15
- 2023Implicit meta-learning may lead language models to trust more reliable sourcescited by 10
- 2024Training Language Models on Synthetic Edit Sequences Improves Code Synthesiscited by 7
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.
2 papers.