As large language models are increasingly used in data-scarce and evolving task scenarios, few-shot in-context learning (ICL) has become a key paradigm for task adaptation. However, direct ICL often uses a small set of examples without explicitly abstracting task rules, making it sensitive to example construction. In contrast, human learners often reduce such sensitivity by first summarizing task rules from examples and then applying them to new instances. To evaluate this ability, we propose StrategyBench, which selects strategy-inducible tasks from BIG-Bench, constructs reference strategies, and defines evaluation metrics along two dimensions: strategy quality and downstream utility. We further analyze strategy induction from three perspectives: task variation, model configuration, and adaptation setting, covering category-wise differences, generator-executor choices, demonstration design, and SFT-based adaptation. Experiments show that explicit strategy utility differs substantially across task categories and depends on both strategy generation and execution conditions. The benchmark is released at: https://anonymous.4open.science/r/StrategyBench-D53C.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Comparison between direct few-shot ICL and strategy-based solving. In direct few-shot ICL, the model directly predicts the answer for a new query from the provided input-output examples. In strategy-based solving, the model first induces an explicit task-level strategy from the few-shot examples and then applies the induced strategy to solve the unseen query.
Figure 2: Overall data construction pipeline of StrategyBench . Starting from BIG-Bench, we first filter tasks with the assistance of LLM-based pre-screening and human verification to obtain a suitable task pool. The filtered tasks are then processed along two independent dimensions: dataset splitting, which produces training, ID test, and OOD test subsets, and task categorization, which assigns tasks to coarse-grained categories. Based on the resulting task types and few-shot examples, candidate strategies are generated and further filtered by downstream utility and statistical significance to form the effective strategy set Seff and the significant reference strategy set Ssig .
Stage
#Tasks
#Subtasks
#Examples
Before filtering
108
581
1,614,716
After filtering
44
356
123,845
Table 1: Dataset statistics before and after task filtering.
Strategy Set
#Tasks
#Subtasks
#Strategies
Seff
22
241
11,993
Ssig
21
221
7,801
Table 2: Statistics of the constructed reference strategy sets. Seff contains strategies that improve over Direct ICL, while Ssig further retains strategies with statistically significant gains.
Metric
Method
Task Category
BBH
Numerical
Logic
Language
Spatial
Procedural
Induction
Corr.
L2M
58.43
42.34
22.21
6.21
9.47
27.50
24.09
Direct ICL
34.31
11.18
4.40
0.69
0.76
0.55
11.55
Ours
15.90
38.58
22.11
3.59
0.97
17.03
15.34
CoT
57.30
43.12
19.43
4.71
19.91
28.99
21.40
CoT+Ours
69.58
55.32
36.09
8.62
25.95
40.90
37.79
Table 3: Utility comparison across different task categories and BBH. Results are computed over all tasks within each category. Bold values indicate the best performance among the five methods for each metric within the same task category or BBH setting.
Generator
Strategy Quality
Strategy Utility
Conc.
Fmat.
Exec. 1.7B
Exec. 4B
Exec. 8B
Corr.
Sta samp
Corr.
Sta samp
Corr.
Sta samp
1.7B
90.98
34.88
14.50
48.30
18.48
54.97
15.86
54.49
4B
90.03
25.12
13.27
42.44
19.41
53.66
14.96
53.98
8B
91.57
22.09
14.57
45.03
20.86
56.83
17.74
54.30
14B
92.98
38.84
13.21
48.51
20.83
57.51
16.74
54.73
Table 4: Effect of generator and executor model scales. We compare four strategy generators and evaluate their generated strategies with three executors. Bold values indicate the best result under the same metric and executor setting.
k
Strategy Quality
Strategy Utility
Conc.
Fmat.
Corr.
Sta samp
1
92.67
31.33
17.34
46.51
3
91.57
22.09
20.89
48.69
5
91.54
21.83
21.26
48.06
10
90.77
15.41
21.19
48.41
30
89.83
14.58
25.49
51.29
Table 5: Effect of the number of few-shot examples on strategy generation and downstream application under k=1,3,5,10,30 . Bold values indicate the best performance across different few-shot settings.
Prompt Type
Strategy Quality
Strategy Utility
Conc.
Fmat.
Corr.
Sta samp
Structured Prompt
91.60
22.79
20.86
48.55
Free-form Prompt
90.91
57.38
16.96
45.02
Table 6: Comparison between structured and free-form prompts for strategy generation and downstream application. Bold values indicate the better result between the two prompt types under the same metric.
Method
ID
OOD
BBH
Quality
Utility
Quality
Utility
Quality
Utility
Conc.
Fmat.
Corr.
Sta samp
Sta rob
Conc.
Fmat.
Corr.
Sta samp
Sta rob
Conc.
Fmat.
Corr.
Sta samp
Sta rob
Ours
92.13
6.68
22.71
59.61
68.08
91.46
21.94
25.42
59.67
68.18
91.77
5.15
15.34
51.90
62.32
Ours+SFT
94.17
62.06
21.33
70.08
77.79
93.03
61.95
23.29
62.89
72.58
93.44
50.35
14.20
66.51
76.41
Table 7: Comparison between Ours and Ours+SFT on ID, OOD, and BBH test sets. Each split reports two strategy quality metrics and three strategy utility metrics. Bold values indicate the best performance between the two variants under the same evaluation setting.
Benchmark / Eval.
Ans. Eval.
Proc. Eval.
Strategy Ind.
Strategy Utility
MMLU ( Hendrycks et al., 2021 )
✓
×
×
×
BBH ( Suzgun et al., 2023 )
✓
×
×
×
GSM8K ( Cobbe et al., 2021 )
✓
×
×
×
Step Verif. ( Lightman et al., 2024 )
✓
✓
×
×
Trace Eval. ( Lee and Hockenmaier, 2025 )
✓
✓
×
×
Ours
✓
✓
✓
✓
Table 8: Comparison of representative benchmarks and process-level evaluations. Ans. Eval., Proc. Eval., Strategy Ind., and Strategy Utility denote answer-level evaluation, process-level evaluation, strategy induction, and strategy utility evaluation, respectively.
Appendix figures & tables6 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Field
Example Value
task
disambiguation_qa
subtask
disambiguation_qa
input
In the following sentences, explain the antecedent of the pronoun. Options: (A) … (B) … (C) Ambiguous.
target
["A"]
Appendix
Table 9: Example of a standardized instance.
Hyperparameter
Value
Base model
Qwen3-8B
Max length
4096
Max steps
2200
Batch size
1
Gradient accumulation
8
Learning rate
1×10−4
Appendix
Table 10: Main hyperparameter settings for supervised fine-tuning.
Figure 3: Example of the JSONL-style data structure used for strategy supervised fine-tuning. Each instance contains the strategy-generation instruction, the few-shot QA block, and the reference strategy as the supervised target.
Figure 4: Prompt V1 used for strategy generation.
Figure 5: Prompt V2 used for strategy generation.
Figure 6: Overview of the concurrent CoDI framework. CoDI uses StrategyBench as a training and evaluation testbed and leverages an SFT model trained from reference strategies. The framework separates task-level strategy induction from answer execution, serving as a downstream method built on the benchmark resources introduced in this paper.
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.
Po-Chun Chen, Hen-Hsen Huang, Hsin-Hsi Chen
Department of Computer Science and Information Engineering, National Taiwan University, Taiwan · Institute of Information Science, Academia Sinica, Taiwan · AI Research Center (AINTU), National Taiwan University, Taiwan
The In-context learning (ICL) paradigm aids large language models (LLMs) to adapt to new tasks without need for fine-tuning. However, selecting an optimal combination of demonstration examples from a large pool of example subsets is a challenging problem. Existing approaches for selection do not model the complex relationship between ICL samples and downstream LLM performance. They typically perform static task-level selection, choosing subsets once offline, which can fail to generalize to unseen queries. We introduce DearICL (Data Efficient Algorithm for Ranking) ICL samples, a new framework that models demonstration example selection as a subset ranking problem. DearICL employs a non-linear surrogate employing a differentiable sorting objective within a gap-index bandit algorithm. The gap-index based approach enables fine-grained separation of good arms and borderline arms, which is used as an auxiliary objective to train the non-linear surrogate through sufficient sampling of borderline arms, supporting instance-level subset ranking. On exemplar selection benchmarks with open-source LLMs, DearICL achieves 8.08-15.9% accuracy gains over strong linear bandit baselines, with low sample complexity. Code and data: https://github.com/VenkteshV/DearICL.
We introduce HERO'S JOURNEY, a benchmark for rule induction in goal-directed episodic tasks, where agents must infer hidden rules from demonstrations and act on them through multi-step execution. HERO'S JOURNEY covers eight tasks across attribute and procedural induction families, each with four structural rule forms, controllable lexical grounding, and identifiability conditions. Evaluating state-of-the-art LLMs, we find that models show evidence of rule induction, but the ability is limited and uneven across tasks. Meanwhile, process execution adds an execution bottleneck for models, whereas surface semantics has minimal effect. Induction-specific steering methods improve performance on attribute tasks but show no reliable gains on procedural tasks, suggesting the gap in procedural induction remains an open challenge.
Anshun Asher Zheng, Kanishka Misra, David I. Beaver +1
Department of Linguistics The University of Texas at Austin