It employs four LLM-based agents: strategy generator, executor, optimizer, and evaluator, working together to generate, evaluate, and select promising strategies for a given task. Experimental results demonstrate that StrategyLLM outperforms the competitive baseline CoT -SC that requires human-annotated solutions on 13 datasets across 4 challenging tasks without human involvement, including math reasoning (34.2%

Most existing prompting methods suffer from the issues of generalizability and consistency, as they often rely on instance-specific solutions that may not be applicable to other instances and lack task-level consistency across the selected few-shot examples. To address these limitations, we propose a comprehensive framework, StrategyLLM, allowing LLMs to perform inductive reasoning, deriving general strategies from specific task instances, and deductive reasoning, applying these general strategies to particular task examples, for constructing generalizable and consistent few-shot prompts. It employs four LLM-based agents: strategy generator, executor, optimizer, and evaluator, working together to generate, evaluate, and select promising strategies for a given task. Experimental results demonstrate that StrategyLLM outperforms the competitive baseline CoT-SC that requires human-annotated solutions on 13 datasets across 4 challenging tasks without human involvement, including math reasoning (34.2\% $\rightarrow$ 38.8\%), commonsense reasoning (70.3\% $\rightarrow$ 72.5\%), algorithmic reasoning (73.7\% $\rightarrow$ 85.0\%), and symbolic reasoning (30.0\% $\rightarrow$ 79.2\%). Further analysis reveals that StrategyLLM is applicable to various LLMs and demonstrates advantages across numerous scenarios.

It employs four LLM-based agents: strategy generator, executor, optimizer, and evaluator, working together to generate, evaluate, and select promising strategies for a given task. Experimental results demonstrate that StrategyLLM outperforms the competitive baseline CoT -SC that requires human-annotated solutions on 13 datasets across 4 challenging tasks without human involvement, including math reasoning (34.2%

Most existing prompting methods suffer from the issues of generalizability and consistency, as they often rely on instance-specific solutions that may not be applicable to other instances and lack task-level consistency across the selected few-shot examples. To address these limitations, we propose a comprehensive framework, StrategyLLM, allowing LLMs to perform inductive reasoning, deriving general strategies from specific task instances, and deductive reasoning, applying these general strategies to particular task examples, for constructing generalizable and consistent few-shot prompts. It employs four LLM-based agents: strategy generator, executor, optimizer, and evaluator, working together to generate, evaluate, and select promising strategies for a given task. Further analysis reveals that StrategyLLM is applicable to various LLMs and demonstrates advantages across numerous scenarios.

Most existing chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting methods suffer from the issues of generalizability and consistency, as they often rely on instance-specific solutions that may not be applicable to other cases and lack task-level consistency in their reasoning steps. To address these limitations, we propose a comprehensive framework, StrategyLLM, harnessing the capabilities of LLMs to tackle various tasks. The framework improves generalizability by formulating general problem-solving strategies and enhances consistency by producing consistent solutions using these strategies. StrategyLLM employs four LLM-based agents: strategy generator, executor, optimizer, and evaluator, working together to generate, evaluate, and select promising strategies for a given task automatically. The experimental results demonstrate that StrategyLLM outperforms the competitive baseline CoT-SC that requires human-annotated solutions on 13 datasets across 4 challenging tasks without human involvement, including math reasoning (39.2% $\rightarrow$ 43.3%), commonsense reasoning (70.3% $\rightarrow$ 72.5%), algorithmic reasoning (51.7% $\rightarrow$ 62.0%), and symbolic reasoning (30.0% $\rightarrow$ 79.2%).