IDEA: Enhancing the Rule Learning Ability of Large Language Model Agent through Induction, Deduction, and Abduction
Kaiyu He, Mian Zhang, Shuo Yan, Peilin Wu, Zhiyu Zoey Chen

TL;DR
This paper introduces RULEARN, a benchmark for evaluating rule-learning in LLM agents within interactive environments, and proposes IDEA, a reasoning framework combining induction, deduction, and abduction to improve their rule-learning capabilities.
Contribution
The paper presents a new benchmark for rule learning in interactive settings and introduces the IDEA framework that enhances LLMs' ability to learn and apply rules in a human-like manner.
Findings
IDEA significantly improves rule-learning performance over baselines.
Discrepancies identified between human and LLM rule-learning behaviors.
RULEARN provides a challenging environment for evaluating rule learning in LLMs.
Abstract
While large language models (LLMs) have been thoroughly evaluated for deductive and inductive reasoning, their proficiency in holistic rule learning in interactive environments remains less explored. We introduce RULEARN, a novel benchmark to assess the rule-learning abilities of LLM agents in interactive settings. In RULEARN, agents strategically interact with simulated environments to gather observations, discern patterns, and solve complex problems. To enhance the rule-learning capabilities for LLM agents, we propose IDEA, a novel reasoning framework that integrates the process of Induction, Deduction, and Abduction. The IDEA agent generates initial hypotheses from limited observations through abduction, devises plans to validate these hypotheses or leverages them to solve problems via deduction, and refines previous hypotheses through induction, dynamically establishing and applying…
Peer Reviews
Decision·ICLR 2025 Conference Withdrawn Submission
- The RULEARN benchmark is a novel benchmark for agentic rule-learning abilities of LLMs, complementary to previous resources for assessing LLM induction abilities. - The IDEA framework shows promises in enabling more enhanced rule-learning ability for LLM-based agents. - The human study provides very interesting insights comparing human and LM rule induction abilities. It's especially interesting to see humans are not very good at formulating initial hypotheses.
- There lacks details for how the puzzles in the benchmark are curated. Also, there's not discussion around the quality and diversity of the benchmark. - The size of the benchmark is relatively small compared to usual benchmarks. - The paper lacks important details of the human study, e.g., how are human participants are instructed about the task, or how are participants enforced to follow the abduction-deduction-induction framework. These details are critical for accessing the rigor of the huma
1. The authors construct an interactive environment containing three types of task, each has 20 puzzles. 2. The authors propose a three-stage framework to improve LLMs' rule-learning ability. 3. The authors conduct experiments on five popular LLMs and compare the results with human's abilities.
1. The small number of questions in the benchmark may limit its applicability. 2. Improving the output of large language models (LLMs) based on the results of interactions with observations and the environment has become a common approach, as seen in methods like ReACT (https://arxiv.org/pdf/2210.03629) and Reflexion (https://arxiv.org/pdf/2303.11366). The main idea of the IDEA framework is quite similar to these works. 3. The experiment lacks some baseline comparisons, such as using search meth
- The paper proposed a benchmark to assess LLM agents' rule-learning ability in an interactive environment, which is different from existing reasoning benchmarks where there are no interactive information-seeking actions required. - The paper proposed an LLM agent, IDEA, which achieves higher performance than the baseline reasoning method in the proposed benchmark. - The presentation of the paper is clear and easy to follow.
While the idea of evaluating the reasoning ability of LLM agents in an interactive environment where information-seeking is necessary is interesting, there are several key drawbacks of the paper: 1. The size of the proposed benchmark is very small, with only twenty puzzles per problem. This will make the evaluation very noisy and also eliminate the possibility of any training on these tasks, which significantly limits the application of the benchmark. 2. The proposed IDEA agent needs prompt tuni
- The paper provides a benchmark to evaluate various reasoning capabilities of LLMs in interactive settings. The proposed tasks, although mainly focused on puzzles, are interesting and serve the evaluation purpose. The results provide insights into LLMs' rule-learning capabilities in real-world scenarios. - The experiments are comprehensive, covering a wide range of puzzle sets and five LLMs. Human experiments are also helpful. - The paper includes various quantitative and qualitative analyses
- The naming of the Oracle-rule agent feels somewhat misleading to me. IMO, it is not really an oracle, as the LLM is not provided with the ground truth rule. Instead, the agent is simply solving an easier task with additional information about the rule. Therefore, this might not serve as a fair or useful upper bound, as the task is actually different. Based on L311-312, “Even if the agent could successfully learn the correct rule, applying the learned rule to solve the puzzle is non-trivial,” I
The benchmark introduced in this paper is reasonably timely, pushing towards open language description of problems that require interactive problem solving. The proposed framework of abduction, followed by induction and deduction is reasonable and showed improved performance over the baseline. Some interesting observations are made in the human studies, e.g. that humans do not do well initially and appear not to do much abduction. This can lead to interesting followup work. Overall, I think that
Overall, the benchmark is okay for exploring interactively solving problems described in natural language. But it is not highly compelling. It is not as targetted towards human priors like the ARC challenge which targets objectness, goal-directness, number and counting, and basic geometry and topology. It is also not clearly useful like the Behaviour-1K benchmark. The size of the benchmark is also not large, so it is useful for exploring the problem with more benchmarks required for verifying th
Code & Models
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsNatural Language Processing Techniques
