Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper presents a unified two-stage definition of abductive reasoning in LLMs, separating it into Hypothesis Generation and Hypothesis Selection. They introduce a comprehensive taxonomy of existing literature based on tasks, datasets, methodologies, and evaluation strategies. Through a benchmark study, the authors analyze LLM performance on abductive tasks, comparing model sizes, families, and evaluation styles, while also relating it to deductive and inductive reasoning.
LLMs may be getting smarter, but this survey reveals a fragmented understanding of abductive reasoning, highlighting critical gaps in current approaches and benchmarks.
Regardless of its foundational role in human discovery and sense-making, abductive reasoning--the inference of the most plausible explanation for an observation--has been relatively underexplored in Large Language Models (LLMs). Despite the rapid advancement of LLMs, the exploration of abductive reasoning and its diverse facets has thus far been disjointed rather than cohesive. This paper presents the first survey of abductive reasoning in LLMs, tracing its trajectory from philosophical foundations to contemporary AI implementations. To address the widespread conceptual confusion and disjointed task definitions prevalent in the field, we establish a unified two-stage definition that formally categorizes prior work. This definition disentangles abduction into \textit{Hypothesis Generation}, where models bridge epistemic gaps to produce candidate explanations, and \textit{Hypothesis Selection}, where the generated candidates are evaluated and the most plausible explanation is chosen. Building upon this foundation, we present a comprehensive taxonomy of the literature, categorizing prior work based on their abductive tasks, datasets, underlying methodologies, and evaluation strategies. In order to ground our framework empirically, we conduct a compact benchmark study of current LLMs on abductive tasks, together with targeted comparative analyses across model sizes, model families, evaluation styles, and the distinct generation-versus-selection task typologies. Moreover, by synthesizing recent empirical results, we examine how LLM performance on abductive reasoning relates to deductive and inductive tasks, providing insights into their broader reasoning capabilities. Our analysis reveals critical gaps in current approaches--from static benchmark design and narrow domain coverage to narrow training frameworks and limited mechanistic understanding of abductive processes...
