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

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.15863 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.15863/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers 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.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/lr/reasoning-benchmarks-and-evaluation/)
- Synthetic data and self-improvement for LLMs / [Self-rewarding alignment and self-training](https://mlsanity.com/synth/self-rewarding-alignment-and-self-training/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 8 of 8)

- [GPT-4 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.08774/) (2023)
- [The Llama 3 Herd of Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21783/) (2024)
- [Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.14168/) (2021)
- [Gemini 1.5: Unlocking multimodal understanding across millions of tokens of context](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.05530/) (2024)
- [Scaling Language Models: Methods, Analysis & Insights from Training Gopher](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2112.11446/) (2021)
- [In-context Learning and Induction Heads](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2209.11895/) (2022)
- [Self-Generated In-Context Learning: Leveraging Auto-regressive Language Models as a Demonstration Generator](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.08082/) (2022)
- [ReGenesis: LLMs can Grow into Reasoning Generalists via Self-Improvement](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.02108/) (2024)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Beyond Repeated Sampling: Learning Search Policies for LLM Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.26704/) (2026)

## 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.