HERO'S JOURNEY: Testing Complex Rule Induction with Text Games

Designing effective task-level prompts is crucial for improving the performance of Large Language Models (LLMs). While prior work on instruction induction demonstrates that LLMs can infer better instructions with limited examples, existing approaches often rely on input-output pairs, where obtaining labeled answers can be difficult or costly. To address this limitation, we propose Strategy-Induct, a framework that derives task-level instructions solely from a small set of example questions without requiring labeled answers. Our approach first prompts the model to generate explicit reasoning strategies for each question, forming (strategy, question) pairs. These pairs are then used to induce a task instruction that guides reasoning. Experiments across multiple tasks and model scales demonstrate that Strategy-Induct outperforms state-of-the-art methods in question-only settings. Furthermore, we observe that jointly utilizing LLMs and Large Reasoning Models across task instruction generation and inference may lead to further performance improvements.

Language models are trained to follow instructions, but they are also powerful pattern completers. What happens when these two objectives conflict? We construct conversations in which a user instruction to behave in a target way T (e.g., always output a specific token, answer in a particular language, or adopt a persona) is opposed by N hardcoded assistant turns demonstrating a competing pattern P. We then measure instruction-following (IF) rates in this setting, across 13 models and 16 different instructions, for up to 50 turns. Average instruction-following rates range from 1% to 99% across models, largely uncorrelated with standard capability benchmarks. The transition from instruction-following to pattern-following is universal but highly model-dependent. Robustness is modulated both by instruction content, with models resisting induction longer when instructions align with their trained value priors, and by output format, with diverse multi-token responses proving substantially more resistant than single-token outputs. Chain-of-thought reasoning improves robustness but does not eliminate susceptibility, and can produce dissociation between correct deliberation and incorrect output. When asked to predict their behavior in this setting, models achieve 83.5% accuracy on average but systematically underestimate their own resistance to induction pressure. These results suggest that instruction-following remains brittle under induction pressure even for otherwise capable models, and that output diversity, rather than semantic engagement with the input, is the primary factor predicting robustness.

ReAct-style LLM agents often rediscover the same reasoning routines across problems, yet leave those routines trapped in transient scratchpads. We introduce Reasoning Primitive Induction, a single-pass method that mines successful ReAct traces, clusters recurrent reasoning moves, and converts the most frequent moves into a compact library of typed pseudo-tools. Each pseudo-tool is specified by a natural-language docstring interpreted by an LLM at invocation time, and a standard ReAct loop composes these primitives at test time. The central result is that induced libraries outperform the very agent that generated their traces: by +44pp on RuleArena NBA (30 -> 74), +30pp on MuSR team allocation (38 -> 68), and +22pp on NatPlan meeting planning (7 -> 29). Across five comparable subtasks spanning narrative deduction, rule application, and constraint-satisfaction planning, a single fixed configuration improves over zero-shot Chain-of-Thought on every subtask, matches or surpasses expert-authored decompositions, and outperforms AWM at lower average inference cost.