mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Not the Example, but the Process: How Self-Generated Examples Enhance LLM Reasoning

arXiv 2602.15863 ↗First posted 26 Jan 2026cs.CL cs.AIcited by 1

On the map: LLM reasoning → Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation

also in 1 more
Abstract (arXiv)

Recent studies have shown that Large Language Models (LLMs) can improve their reasoning performance through self-generated few-shot examples, achieving results comparable to manually curated in-context examples. However, the underlying mechanism behind these gains remains unclear, making it hard to decide when and how to apply the technique effectively. In this work, we argue that the key benefit arises not from the generated examples themselves but from the act of creating them. To validate this, on reasoning-intensive tasks across diverse LLM architectures, we systematically evaluate three prompting strategies for in-context learning: (1) Zero-shot prompting; (2) Integrated prompting, where LLMs create and solve problems within a single, unified prompt; and (3) Decoupled prompting, where self-generated examples are reused as in-context examples, but the context of their creation itself is excluded. We conduct experiments across five widely used model architectures, demonstrating that Integrated prompting consistently outperforms both Zero-shot and Decoupled prompting. In contrast, Decoupled prompting offers only marginal gains over Zero-shot. Further, for a more in-depth analysis, we conduct an attention analysis and observe significant differences in attention patterns between Integrated and Decoupled prompting. These findings suggest that the advantage of self-generation prompting comes from the process of problem creation, not the examples themselves, providing valuable insights for designing more effective prompting strategies.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 8 of its 36 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 26 Jan 2026.

Builds on

8 of 36 references.

References · 8

  1. 2023GPT-4 Technical Reportcited by 18,396
  2. 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,715
  3. 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 10,109
  4. 2024Gemini 1.5: Unlocking multimodal understanding across millions of tokens of contextcited by 3,224
  5. 2021Scaling Language Models: Methods, Analysis & Insights from Training Gophercited by 1,202
  6. 2022In-context Learning and Induction Headscited by 964
  7. 2022Self-Generated In-Context Learning: Leveraging Auto-regressive Language Models as a Demonstration Generatorcited by 68
  8. 2024ReGenesis: LLMs can Grow into Reasoning Generalists via Self-Improvementcited by 18

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026When Do Explanations Help In-Context Learning? A Comparative Study of Natural Language Explanation Types and Faithfulness
  2. 2024Relevant or Random: Can LLMs Truly Perform Analogical Reasoning?
  3. 2024Leveraging Zero-Shot Prompting for Efficient Language Model Distillation
  4. 2025"Well, Keep Thinking": Enhancing LLM Reasoning with Adaptive Injection Decoding
  5. 2025Rethinking the Unsolvable: When In-Context Search Meets Test-Time Scaling
  6. 2024Toward Self-Improvement of LLMs via Imagination, Searching, and Criticizing
  7. 2023Are Human-generated Demonstrations Necessary for In-context Learning?
  8. 2025Self-Generated In-Context Examples Improve LLM Agents for Sequential Decision-Making Tasks