# Induction and Inquiry via Probabilistic Reasoning over Language and Code

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.01815 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.01815/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 5 of its 46 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 1 Sep 2026.

## Placed in

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

## Builds on (most cited first, 5 of 5)

- [DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.12948/) (2025)
- [OpenAI o1 System Card](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.16720/) (2024)
- [Probabilistic Inference in Language Models via Twisted Sequential Monte Carlo](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.17546/) (2024)
- [Can humans teach machines to code?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.19397/) (2024)
- [Active Object Localization in Visual Situations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1607.00548/) (2016)

## Abstract (arXiv)

How humans grow and maintain abstract knowledge from the sparse, streaming noisy data of experience is a longstanding challenge in cognitive science. Any computational account must satisfy at least three desiderata: It must be (1) data-efficient and compute-efficient, (2) capture gradations of uncertainty to support intelligent inquiry and information gathering, and (3) be flexible enough to mentally represent the endless range of concepts people can learn and think about. Here we introduce a computational model that captures these three properties, by encoding symbolic knowledge as mental programs that combine natural language with source code, and sequentially inferring mental programs using LLM-guided Bayesian learning algorithms. Across a range of behavioral studies this model successfully reproduces quantitative signatures of human inductive learning and active inquiry, such as anchoring, garden-pathing, and other effects. In contrast, pure LLMs and classic Bayesian models either fail at the underlying task, or do not reproduce human behavior, or succeed only at exorbitant computational cost. These results suggest that one way humans continually grow their knowledge is by mentally representing many hypotheses spanning language-like and program-like representations, then revising those hypotheses to approximate Bayesian updates, while a bottom-up neural mechanism (an LLM) makes inference both tractable and learnable.