Large Language Models (LLMs) show impressive inductive reasoning capabilities, enabling them to generate hypotheses that could generalize effectively to new instances when guided by in-context demonstrations. However, in real-world applications, LLMs' hypothesis generation is not solely determined by these demonstrations but is significantly shaped by task-specific model priors. Despite their critical influence, the distinct contributions of model priors versus demonstrations to hypothesis generation have been underexplored. This study bridges this gap by systematically evaluating three inductive reasoning strategies across five real-world tasks with three LLMs. Our empirical findings reveal that, hypothesis generation is primarily driven by the model's inherent priors; removing demonstrations results in minimal loss of hypothesis quality and downstream usage. Further analysis shows the result is consistent across various label formats with different label configurations, and prior is hard to override, even under flipped labeling. These insights advance our understanding of the dynamics of hypothesis generation in LLMs and highlight the potential for better utilizing model priors in real-world inductive reasoning tasks.
View on arXiv