Case2Code: Learning Inductive Reasoning with Synthetic Data

While Reasoning is one major topic for neural networks, especially in the era of LLMs Huang and Chang (2022), inductive reasoning is rarely discussed in LLM reasoning, most research focuses on specific scenarios with limited inductive reasoning. One pioneer work is prerequisite toy tasks Weston et al. (2015) where the task goal is to solve simple induction. Later, Yang et al. (2022) introduces various world-wide knowledge such as botany, history and geography into the facts given and asks neural models to predict whether a given rule is correct. On the other hand, several works focus on training inductive program synthesis models for constrained scenarios with limited search spaces, such as operations on list, string, and manually-defined objects Balog et al. (2016); Devlin et al. (2017); Ellis et al. (2021); Shi et al. (2023). Different from previous reasoning ability studies, our proposed Case2Code task leverages diverse code in the real world as a powerful platform for LLMs to learn inductive reasoning under various challenging scenarios.

The most widely studied LLMs reasoning task is the deductive reasoning ability, represented by chain-of-thoughts (CoTs) reasoning Wei et al. (2022b), which instructs LLMs to solve problems in detailed deductive steps. Recent works focus on building high-quality CoTs through strong LLMs such as GPT-4 to enhance smaller LLMs Yu et al. (2023); Mitra et al. (2024); Luo et al. (2023). While a particular line of work focuses on studying different search strategies of reasoning paths, including self-consistency Wang et al. (2022a), rejection sampling Huang et al. (2023); Yuan et al. (2023); Wang et al. (2023a), tree-structure CoT (ToT) searching Yao et al. (2023), Monte Carlo Tree Searching Silver et al. (2016); Chen et al. (2024), etc.

The inductive reasoning task aims to find a general hypothesis based on a small set of observations to explain a phenomenon. In this paper, we define Case2Code, an inductive reasoning task in the code domain. Case2Code is a program synthesis task that targets the reconstruction of unknown programs based on observations of the program behaviors.

Formally, for a functional program $\mathcal{P}$, we have a set of $n$ input-output examples $\mathcal{S_{P}}=\{(x_{1},y_{1}),(x_{2},y_{2}),...,(x_{n},y_{n})\}$, where $y_{i}=\mathcal{P}(x_{i}),i=1,2,...,n$. The goal of Case2Code is to implement a program $\mathcal{P^{\prime}}$ that captures the functionality of the program $\mathcal{P}$ based on the observed set of input-output example cases $\mathcal{S_{P}}$. And for any new input case $x_{\text{new}}\notin\mathcal{S_{P}}$, the implemented program $\mathcal{P^{\prime}}$ should satisfy that $\mathcal{P}(x_{\text{new}})=\mathcal{P^{\prime}}(x_{\text{new}})$.

In our synthetic data generation framework, we focus on generating large-scale and diverse Case2Code data automatically. As shown in Figure 2, we first collect diverse programs from large-scale datasets with rule-based filters. Then we incorporate LLMs to write diverse example inputs and utilize the code interpreter to calculate their corresponding outputs for each program. Finally, we filter out low-quality programs based on their outputs and convert the obtained triple (program, inputs, outputs) into Case2Code data for inductive reasoning in the code domain.

Note that the correctness of our synthetic data does not depend on the capabilities of the used LLMs. Therefore, we can synthetic high-quality Case2Code data at scale using small LLMs with low costs.

To obtain massive data samples for inductive reasoning learning, we first need to acquire massive and diverse programs that take input arguments, do some complicated processes, and return output values. Instead of prompting LLMs to generate functions that meet these requirements, we collect human-written high-quality programs in the wild to enhance diversity.

Specifically, we sample valid Python functions from The Stack Kocetkov et al. (2022) to construct our reasoning dataset. We incorporate the out-of-box Abstract Syntax Tree (AST) parsing tool ²²2https://docs.python.org/3/library/ast.html to parse each file in The Stack to obtain Python functions. We only keep self-contained high-quality functions that satisfy all of these filtering rules: (1) pass the syntax check; (2) have one or more input arguments and return values; and (3) do not rely on third-party packages or external I/O operations. After collecting these functions, we can easily execute and verify these functions to obtain diverse Case2Code data with a simple and fast code interpreter at scale, which avoids extra file or network operations that require a sophisticated sandbox.

Once we collect large-scale functions, the next step is to obtain the corresponding input-output pairs for each function to construct the Case2Code data. It is infeasible to write test cases for each function manually. So, we utilize LLMs to generate suitable input examples for these functions. We prompt LLMs to write some example input arguments for each function based on the corresponding function implementation. Detailed prompt is listed in Table 6 in the appendix.

To generate suitable input arguments, the LLM needs first to analyze the implementation of the functions, then infer the possible types and value ranges of the input arguments, and finally come up with correct input arguments. However, we argue that a powerful LLM is not the key factor for our synthetic data. As we find that while strong LLMs can write high-quality inputs to generate Case2Code training data that boosts the reasoning performance of weak LLMs, the weak LLM can also write inputs for creating Case2Code data to self-improve their reasoning ability (see Sec 4.4). Therefore, the generation process can be scaled efficiently at a low cost by using small LLMs.

After collecting self-contained functions and the corresponding inputs, it is intuitive to incorporate a code interpreter to run these functions on their inputs for output curation. Since the LLM-generated input examples can contain errors, we introduced a filtering procedure to reject invalid inputs or functions based on their returned outputs. Specifically, if the outputs of a function do not change as the inputs change (e.g. always return the same output or exceptions), the function is considered invalid and will be filtered out.

Moreover, we also filter out functions that generate very long output values to ensure the length of the generated Case2Code data is within the context window size of current LLMs. Note that we do not filter out inputs that lead to exceptions or runtime errors, as we believe that failure call attempts can also provide valuable information for inductive reasoning to reconstruct the function.

The final step is to convert the obtained functions and their corresponding input-output pairs into Case2Code style data. Formally, for a given function $\mathcal{P}$ and its $n$ test cases $\mathcal{S_{P}}=\{(x_{1},y_{1}),(x_{2},y_{2}),...,(x_{n},y_{n})\}$, we randomly sample $m$ examples ($m<=n$) as the observed set $\mathcal{S^{\prime}_{P}}$. We generate the prompted data that facilitate the LLM to conduct inductive reasoning on the observed examples $\mathcal{S^{\prime}_{P}}$ to reconstruct the given function $\mathcal{P}$. Converted training examples are shown in Table 7 in the appendix.

We find that the diversity of the prompts can substantially affect the generalization of the model reasoning performance (as shown in Sec 4.4). Therefore, we manually construct about 10 prompts with different styles to enhance the data diversity.

As shown in Table 1, we report the zero-shot Case2Code performance of different representative LLMs and their programming performance. We can find that the zero-shot Case2Code performance of representative models is strongly related to their corresponding program synthesis performance. Models with higher program synthesis scores tend to achieve higher Case2Code performance. And larger models often outperform small models. This indicates that Case2Code can become a good benchmark to reflect the code reasoning performance of different LLMs. However, the zero-shot Case2Code scores of LLMs have a large gap compared with their coding accuracy, which demonstrates that existing LLMs are better at some types of reasoning (e.g. writing programs based on instructions) than others (e.g. inductive programs by their behaviors). This can be explained as the LLMs are trained with massive program generation data but fewer samples similar to Case2Code that need inductive reasoning. Similar to the Reverse Curse Berglund et al. (2023), models trained with deductive reasoning data struggle to transfer to inductive reasoning tasks.

One essential issue of synthetic data is its generalization ability. Therefore, we train different LLMs with our synthetic Case2Code dataset under various settings to explore how it affects the learning of code reasoning of LLMs.

In this section, we conduct ablation studies to demonstrate the effectiveness of the Case2Code synthetic pipeline across different families and scales of LLMs.