Papers › Code Prompting Elicits Conditional Reasoning Abilities in Text+Code LLMs

Code Prompting Elicits Conditional Reasoning Abilities in Text+Code LLMs

18 Jan 2024arXiv:2401.10065archive 2025-07-28

Haritz Puerto, Martin Tutek, Somak Aditya, Xiaodan Zhu, Iryna Gurevych

Reasoning is a fundamental component of language understanding. Recent prompting techniques, such as chain of thought, have consistently improved LLMs' performance on various reasoning tasks. Nevertheless, there is still little understanding of what triggers reasoning abilities in LLMs in the inference stage. In this paper, we introduce code prompting, a chain of prompts that transforms a natural language problem into code and directly prompts the LLM using the generated code without resorting to external code execution. We hypothesize that code prompts can elicit certain reasoning capabilities of LLMs trained on text and code and utilize the proposed method to improve conditional reasoning, the ability to infer different conclusions depending on the fulfillment of certain conditions. We find that code prompting exhibits a high-performance boost for multiple LLMs (up to 22.52 percentage points on GPT 3.5, 7.75 on Mixtral, and 16.78 on Mistral) across multiple conditional reasoning datasets. We then conduct comprehensive experiments to understand how code prompts trigger reasoning abilities and which capabilities are elicited in the underlying models. Our analysis of GPT 3.5 reveals that the code formatting of the input problem is essential for performance improvement. Furthermore, code prompts improve sample efficiency of in-context learning and facilitate state tracking of variables or entities.

Code

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

7 samples harvested; 6 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 1 has no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 0 of the 7 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from ukplab/arxiv2024-conditional-reasoning-llms. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Tasks

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Methods

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections