Link to paper

The full paper is available here.

You can also find the paper on PapersWithCode here.

Abstract

  • LLMs are able to make predictions based on contexts and a few training examples
  • This paper surveys and summarizes the progress, challenges, and future work in ICL
  • It provides a formal definition of ICL and clarifies its correlation to related studies
  • It discusses advanced techniques of ICL, including training strategies and prompting strategies
  • It presents the challenges of ICL and provides potential directions for further research

Paper Content

Introduction

  • Large language models (LLMs) can perform complex tasks with in-context learning (ICL)
  • ICL requires a few examples to form a demonstration context, usually written in natural language templates
  • ICL does not require parameter updates and directly performs predictions on the pretrained language models
  • ICL provides an interpretable interface to communicate with large language models
  • ICL is similar to the decision process of human beings by learning from analogy
  • ICL is a training-free learning framework
  • ICL has multiple attractive advantages, including being interpretable and training-free

Overview

  • ICL relies on two stages: training and inference
  • Training stage involves language models being trained on language modeling objectives
  • Inference stage involves input and output labels being represented in natural language templates
  • Taxonomy of ICL is shown in Fig. 2
  • Definition of ICL: language models learn tasks given only a few examples in the form of demonstration
  • ICL compared to Prompt Learning and Fewshot Learning

Model warmup

  • LLMs have promising ICL capability
  • Warmup is an optional procedure to improve ICL capability of LLMs

Supervised in-context training

  • Researchers proposed supervised in-context finetuning strategies to enhance ICL capability.
  • MetaICL eliminates the gap between pretraining and downstream ICL usage.
  • FLAN improves zero-shot and few-shot ICL performance.
  • Instruction tuning mainly considers an explanation of the task and is easy to scale up.

Self-supervised in-context training

Prompt designing

  • Performance of ICL depends on the demonstration surface
  • Prompt format, order of demonstration examples are important
  • Demonstrations play a vital role in ICL
  • Two groups of prompt designing strategies: demonstration organization and demonstration formatting

Demonstration organization

  • Demonstration organization focuses on selecting and sorting examples
  • Unsupervised methods use pre-defined metrics like L2 distance or cosine-similarity distance
  • Supervised methods use two-stage retrieval and reinforcement learning
  • Previous studies have proposed training-free methods to sort examples

Demonstration formatting

  • Common way to format demonstrations is concatenating examples with a specific template
  • Tasks that need complex reasoning are difficult to learn from only a few demonstrations
  • Researchers aim to design better demonstrations by adding intermediate reasoning steps and instructions

Scoring function

  • Direct estimation method uses conditional probability of candidate answers
  • Perplexity metric computes sentence perplexity of whole input sequence
  • Channel model estimates input query given label
  • Normalizing score by subtracting model-dependent prior with empty inputs can improve performance

Analysis

  • Analytical studies attempt to understand ICL
  • Factors that influence ICL performance are summarized in Table 3

What influences icl performance

  • Pretraining corpus domain is more important than corpus size
  • Combining multiple corpora may give rise to emergent ICL ability
  • Pretraining on corpora related to downstream tasks does not always improve ICL performance
  • Models with lower perplexity do not always perform better in ICL scenarios
  • Number of model parameters and pretraining steps influence emergent ICL abilities
  • Influence of demonstration samples come from four aspects: input-label pairing format, label space, input distribution, and input-label mapping
  • Demonstration sample order is an important factor
  • Demonstration samples with closer embeddings to query samples bring better performance
  • ICL explained as implicit Bayesian inference
  • Transformers can encode effective learning algorithms to learn unseen linear functions
  • ICL and finetuning related
  • Induction heads constitute the mechanism of ICL

Evaluation and resources

Traditional tasks

  • ICL can be tested on traditional datasets and benchmarks
  • GPT-3 can achieve results comparable to SOTA finetuning performance on COPA and ReCoRD
  • Scaling up the number of demonstration examples has limited improvement
  • ICL still has room to improve on traditional NLP tasks

New challenging tasks

  • Researchers are interested in evaluating the intrinsic capabilities of large language models without downstream task finetuning
  • BIG-Bench is a large benchmark covering a range of tasks
  • Models have outperformed human-rater results on 65% of BIG-Bench tasks
  • BIG-Bench Hard includes 23 unsolved tasks
  • Researchers are searching for tasks where model performance reduces when scaling up the model size
  • OPT-IML Bench consists of 2000 NLP tasks from 8 existing benchmarks
  • Studies focus on exploring the reasoning ability of ICL

Application

  • ICL has been shown to be effective for traditional NLP tasks and methods.
  • ICL has been used for tasks that require complexity reasoning and compositional generalization.
  • ICL has been used for meta-learning, where model parameters are frozen.
  • ICL has been used for lightweight model editing.
  • ICL has potential to be widely applied in data engineering.

New pretraining strategies

  • Language model objectives are not equal to ICL abilities.
  • Intermediate tuning before inference can improve performance.
  • Tailored pretraining objectives and metrics can raise LLMs with better ICL capabilities.

Distill the icl ability to smaller models

  • Previous studies have shown that in-context learning for reasoning tasks is possible with large models.
  • Magister et al. (2022) showed that it is possible to transfer the reasoning ability to smaller models.
  • Further investigation is needed to improve the reasoning ability by learning from larger models.

Knowledge augmentation and updating

  • LLMs may lack certain knowledge and generate hallucinations during ICL inference.
  • Retrieving correct knowledge and integrating it with the context in a lightweight manner is promising for ICL.
  • Knowledge in LLMs could be wrong or out-of-date.
  • In-context knowledge updating can update answers around 85% of the time.

Robustness to demonstration

  • Previous studies have shown ICL performance is unstable
  • ICL can be sensitive to many factors
  • Improving ICL robustness is challenging
  • Existing methods have accuracy/robustness dilemma or sacrifice inference efficiency
  • Need deeper analysis of ICL working mechanism from theoretical perspective

Icl for data engineering

  • ICL generates high-quality data at a low cost
  • ICL takes only a few examples to learn the data engineering objective
  • LLM has strong reasoning and text-generating ability
  • Improving ICL for data annotation is a direction with practical value

Conclusion

  • Review of advanced ICL techniques
  • Challenges and potential directions for future research
  • Training and inference stages for ICL
  • Training data needs to have examples appearing in clusters and enough rare classes
  • Chain-of-thought prompting for complex reasoning
  • Demonstration selection and CoT designing to improve CoT prompting ability
  • Scoring functions for ICL