Using Probabilistic Programs to Train Inductive Reasoning in Large Language Models
About
Post-training Large Language Models (LLMs) for reasoning typically focuses on deductive tasks such as mathematics and coding where correctness is verifiable. Yet, many real-world reasoning problems are inductive: agents must infer uncertain beliefs from sparse, ambiguous observations. There are challenges to using standard fine-tuning methods for inductive reasoning, including difficulties in curating large-scale, high-quality labeled datasets and in handling targets that are inherently distributional. In this work, we introduce a novel approach, called Program-based Posterior Training (PPT), to address these limitations: we use an LLM to generate diverse open-world scenarios as probabilistic programs, run probabilistic inference to produce distributional target responses to queries, and then fine-tune on these probabilistic soft labels. Using this approach, we fine-tune LLMs on 10,000 programmatically generated scenarios and evaluate on held-out motifs, human-labeled judgments, and external benchmarks. Overall, PPT substantially improves estimation accuracy on held-out inductive tasks, increases alignment with human judgments, and transfers to external benchmarks for estimation and calibration. Additionally, the gains in raw calibration are not subsumed by post-hoc temperature scaling, showing that the models have more deeply internalized uncertainty compared to output rescaling. Together, these results suggest that probabilistic-program-mediated fine-tuning is a promising approach for post-training LLMs to reliably perform approximate inductive inference.
Related benchmarks
| Task | Dataset | Result | Rank | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Multiple-choice Question Answering | ARC Challenge (test) | Accuracy84.1 | 71 | |
| Calibration | MMLU | -- | 58 | |
| Question Answering | TruthfulQA (test) | Accuracy43.2 | 40 | |
| Calibration | TruthfulQA | -- | 32 | |
| Multiple-choice Question Answering | MMLU (test) | Accuracy65.5 | 21 | |
| Multiple-choice Question Answering | Winogrande (WinoG) (test) | Accuracy63.8 | 13 | |
| Multiple-choice Question Answering | HELLASWAG (test) | Accuracy79.4 | 13 | |
| Expected Calibration Error | HellaSwag | ECE (15-bin)1.5 | 11 | |
| Expected Calibration Error | ARC-C | ECE (15-bin)5 | 11 | |
| Expected Calibration Error | WinoGrande | ECE (15-bin)8 | 11 |