PreprintCited by 23,372Topic ModelingDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot LearningNatural Language Processing Techniques

Language Models are Few-Shot Learners

Open access
Brown, Tom B., Mann, Benjamin, Ryder, Nick, Subbiah, Melanie, Kaplan, Jared, Dhariwal, Prafulla, Neelakantan, Arvind, Shyam, Pranav +23 more·2020·arXiv

Abstract

Recent work has demonstrated substantial gains on many NLP tasks and benchmarks by pre-training on a large corpus of text followed by fine-tuning on a specific task. While typically task-agnostic in architecture, this method still requires task-specific fine-tuning datasets of thousands or tens of thousands of examples. By contrast, humans can generally perform a new language task from only a few examples or from simple instructions - something which current NLP systems still largely struggle to do. Here we show that scaling up language models greatly improves task-agnostic, few-shot performance, sometimes even reaching competitiveness with prior state-of-the-art fine-tuning approaches. Specifically, we train GPT-3, an autoregressive language model with 175 billion parameters, 10x more than any previous non-sparse language model, and test its performance in the few-shot setting. For all tasks, GPT-3 is applied without any gradient updates or fine-tuning, with tasks and few-shot demonstrations specified purely via text interaction with the model. GPT-3 achieves strong performance on many NLP datasets, including translation, question-answering, and cloze tasks, as well as several tasks that require on-the-fly reasoning or domain adaptation, such as unscrambling words, using a novel word in a sentence, or performing 3-digit arithmetic. At the same time, we also identify some datasets where GPT-3's few-shot learning still struggles, as well as some datasets where GPT-3 faces methodological issues related to training on large web corpora. Finally, we find that GPT-3 can generate samples of news articles which human evaluators have difficulty distinguishing from articles written by humans. We discuss broader societal impacts of this finding and of GPT-3 in general.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2005.14165

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Existing work on dataset processing varies in the level of detail provided, from no details to detailed filtering instructions with or without code release.

    “Existing work tends to fall on a spectrum from no details at all (Brown et al., 2020) to detailed filtering instructions, with (Raffel et al., 2020) or without the dataset release (Rae et al., 2021) to detailed filtering instructions with the accompanying code (Gao et al., 2020; Conneau et al., 2020; Ortiz Suárez et al., 2019).”

    From The BigScience ROOTS Corpus: A 1.6TB Composite Multilingual Dataset (2023) · cites this paper as Brown et al., 2020

    The citation presents Brown et al. (2020) as providing no dataset-processing details. Section 2.2 (p. 8) describes filtering and deduplication, and Appendix A (p. 43) gives further details of both methods, so the paper says the contrary. (LLM, conf=0.94)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The number of reported contributors increased from 25 for GPT-3 to 284 for GPT-4.

    “The number of reported contributors increased from 25 for GPT-3 [14] to 284 for GPT-4 [12]”

    From The rising costs of training frontier AI models (2024) · cites this paper as [14]

    The title page (p. 1) lists 31 named authors of the GPT-3 paper, not 25. This verdict concerns the GPT-3 figure attached to this citation; the GPT-4 figure is attached to a different citation. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Few-shot learning works so well with LLMs that it is unclear whether sufficient task-specific data can ever be gathered to train a customized model to rival their performance.

    “Few-shot learning works so well with LLMs that it is unclear whether sufficient task-specific data can ever be gathered to train a customized model to rival their performance [3,12].”

    From Automatic Semantic Augmentation of Language Model Prompts (for Code Summarization) (2024) · cites this paper as [12]

    The Introduction (p. 3) says large task-specific datasets are difficult to collect for many tasks. But the Approach (p. 6) says few-shot results have been much worse than state-of-the-art fine-tuned models—the opposite of the claim that collecting enough data to train a rival customized model is in doubt. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • ASAP defaults to three shots because related work and the authors' own experiments confirmed that more shots did not significantly improve performance.

    “A𝑆𝐴𝑃 defaults to three shots because related work [3,12] has shown, and our own experiments with A𝑆𝐴𝑃 confirmed, that more shots did not significantly improve performance.”

    From Automatic Semantic Augmentation of Language Model Prompts (for Code Summarization) (2024) · cites this paper as [12]

    The claim cites Brown et al. for the premise that adding shots does not significantly improve performance beyond three. The paper says the opposite as a general trend: the Introduction (p. 5) reports improvement with more examples for most tasks, and Evaluation (p. 10) says larger numbers of examples are usually better. The citing authors’ own ASAP experiments are not attributed to Brown et al. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Large language models are recent large-scale models with over a billion parameters that exhibit strong few-shot and zero-shot performance.

    “LLMs refer to the recent large-scale models with over a billion parameters that exhibit strong few-shot and zero-shot performance [9,16].”

    From LP-MusicCaps: LLM-Based Pseudo Music Captioning (2023) · cites this paper as [9]

    The Conclusion (p. 40) reports that the paper’s 175-billion-parameter model performs strongly on many tasks in zero-shot and few-shot settings. This supports GPT-3 as an example, but the paper does not define LLMs by an over-one-billion-parameter threshold or establish that models above that threshold generally have strong performance. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Brown, T. B., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J., Dhariwal, P., Neelakantan, A., Shyam, P., Sastry, G., Askell, A., Agarwal, S., Herbert-Voss, A., Krueger, G., Henighan, T., Child, R., Ramesh, A., Ziegler, D. M., Wu, J., Winter, C., Hesse, C., Chen, M., Sigler, E., Litwin, M., Gray, S., Chess, B., Clark, J., Berner, C., McCandlish, S., Radford, A., Sutskever, I., & Amodei, D.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2020
Volume
33
Pages
1877-1901
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3030163527
Cited by
23,372
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 403 · 2025: 4739 · 2024: 7286 · 2023: 6380 · 2022: 2283 · 2021: 1844 · 2020: 427 · 2019: 6 · 2017: 1 · 2013: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
  • neural information processing systems
Funders
National Science Foundation (2112606)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
Keywords
few-shot learning, GPT-3, large language models, task-agnostic learning, pre-training, fine-tuning, autoregressive language models, domain adaptation, text-to-text translation, question answering, cloze task, text generation, societal impact of AI

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review