Language Models are Few-Shot Learners
Open accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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 measuredThe 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 measuredFew-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 measuredASAP 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 measuredLarge 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
ChatGPT-3 can solve few-shot tasks through in-context learning or sequential reasoning in complex tasks, while GPT-2 or BERT cannot do that well.
“For example, ChatGPT-3 can solve few-shot tasks through in-context learning or sequential reasoning in complex tasks, while GPT-2 or BERT can not do that well.”
From ChatGPT and Deepseek: Can They Predict the Stock Market and Macroeconomy? (2025) · cites this paper as Brown et al., 2020
The Introduction (p. 5) reports GPT-3’s few-shot in-context learning and proficiency on some on-the-fly reasoning tasks. But §3.9 (p. 21) describes simple reasoning tasks, not sequential reasoning in complex tasks. The paper also does not establish that GPT-2 or BERT cannot do these tasks well; §3.7 (p. 20) says GPT-3 roughly matches fine-tuned BERT-Large on several tasks. The model studied is GPT-3, not “ChatGPT-3.” (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe language modeling objective used for many recent large LMs-predicting the next token on a webpage from the internet-is different from the objective 'follow the user's instructions helpfully and safely'.
“This is because the language modeling objective used for many recent large LMs-predicting the next token on a webpage from the internet-is different from the objective 'follow the user's instructions helpfully and safely' (Radford et al., 2019; Brown et al., 2020; Fedus et al., 2021; Rae et al., 2021; Thoppilan et al., 2022).”
From Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback (2022) · cites this paper as Brown et al., 2020
Section 2.2 (p. 8) describes training on web-derived text, and Section 5 (p. 33) contrasts self-supervised prediction with the goal-directed actions a useful virtual assistant might take. That supports the distinction between predicting text and serving a user's goals, but the paper does not frame the alternative objective specifically as following instructions helpfully and safely. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredLarge language models have achieved notable successes, demonstrating significant potential in attaining human-like intelligence.
“In recent years, large language models (LLMs) have achieved notable successes, demonstrating significant potential in attaining human-like intelligence [5][6][7][8][9][10].”
From A survey on large language model based autonomous agents (2024) · cites this paper as [5]
The Conclusion (p. 40) reports strong performance across many language tasks and suggests that very large language models may help develop adaptable, general language systems. The Introduction (p. 3) identifies human-like adaptability as a goal. Neither passage establishes potential to attain human-like intelligence more broadly, so that part of the claim goes beyond the paper. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredGPT-3 is trained on 175 billion parameters from 45 terabytes of human-created text collected from web pages, Wikipedia, books, and social media data.
“GPT-3 is trained on 175 billion parameters from 45 terabytes of human-created text collected from web pages, Wikipedia, books, and social media data [13].”
From Synthetic Lies: Understanding AI-Generated Misinformation and Evaluating Algorithmic and Human Solutions (2023) · cites this paper as [13]
Section 2.1 (p. 8) identifies GPT-3 as the 175-billion-parameter model. Section 2.2 (p. 8) lists Common Crawl, WebText, books and Wikipedia as training sources, but says 45 TB was the compressed Common Crawl text before filtering, not the amount used to train GPT-3; it does not identify social media data as a training source. (LLM, conf=0.90)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredLLMs process information within a finite attention window, and their internal representations do not persist across interactions, causing earlier details to be forgotten once they fall outside the active context.
“These models process information within a finite attention window, and their internal representations do not persist across interactions, causing earlier details to be forgotten once they fall outside the active context (Brown et al., 2020; Beltagy et al., 2020a).”
From MAGMA: A Multi-Graph based Agentic Memory Architecture for AI Agents (2026) · cites this paper as Brown et al., 2020
The Evaluation section (p. 10) specifies a finite 2,048-token context window, and Related Work (p. 40) describes inference-time adaptation through activations without updating the model's weights. Our copy does not explicitly address persistence across interactions or establish that earlier details are forgotten when they leave the active context. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn-context learning is constrained by context window length and lacks persistent memory across sessions.
“ICL is constrained by context window length and lacks persistent memory across sessions”
From ARTEM: Enhancing Large Language Model Agents with Spatial-Temporal Episodic Memory (2026) · cites this paper as Brown et al. 2020
The Approach (p. 6) says few-shot demonstrations must fit within the model’s 2,048-token context window, supporting the context-length constraint. It also says inference involves no weight updates, and the Introduction (p. 3) describes in-context learning as occurring within the forward pass of each sequence. The paper does not explicitly discuss persistent memory across sessions. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredAlthough AI outperforms humans in an ever-broadening range of tasks, it trails far behind when it comes to ToM.
“Yet, although AI outperforms humans in an ever-broadening range of tasks, from playing poker (20) and Go (21) to translating languages (22) and diagnosing skin cancer (23), it trails far behind when it comes to ToM.”
From Evaluating large language models in theory of mind tasks (2024) · cites this paper as [22]
Citation (22) is attached to translating languages, not to the sentence’s theory-of-mind claim. Section 3.3 (pp. 14–15) reports GPT-3’s translation results and comparisons with other translation systems, but does not establish that it outperforms human translators. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredGPT-3 has 175 billion parameters and was trained on hundreds of billions of words from the Internet and books.
“The model itself is large (it has 175 billion parameters), and it was trained on a vast amount of data: hundreds of billions of words from the Internet and books.”
From Using cognitive psychology to understand GPT-3 (2023) · cites this paper as [2]
Section 2.1 (p. 8) identifies GPT-3 as the 175-billion-parameter model, and Section 2.2 (p. 8) says its training mix included internet text and two books corpora. The paper reports training on 300 billion tokens (p. 9), not a measured count of hundreds of billions of words; tokens and words are not interchangeable. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredLarge pre-trained language models struggle with tasks that require unbounded multi-step computation, such as adding integers or executing programs.
“However, they struggle with tasks that require unbounded multi-step computation, such as adding integers (Brown et al., 2020) or executing programs (Austin et al., 2021).”
From Show Your Work: Scratchpads for Intermediate Computation with Language Models (2021) · cites this paper as Brown et al., 2020
Section 3.9.1 (p. 22) reports that GPT-3’s addition accuracy falls as the number of digits increases, supporting the claim that it struggles with larger integer additions. The paper tests bounded problems of up to five digits; it does not establish a general limitation on unbounded multi-step computation. The separate citation to Austin et al. is attached to executing programs, so that example is not attributed to Brown et al. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredUsing a broad data distribution is the best way to advance general AI.
“In SIMA, however, we are drawing inspiration from the lesson of large language models that training on a broad distribution of data is the most effective way to make progress in general AI (e.g., Brown et al., 2020;Hoffmann et al., 2022;OpenAI, 2023;Anil et al., 2023;Gemini Team et al., 2023).”
From Scaling Instructable Agents Across Many Simulated Worlds (2024) · cites this paper as Brown et al., 2020
Related Work (p. 40) says large-scale text pre-training offers a natural, broad distribution of tasks, supporting the value of breadth for language-model generality. It does not establish that broad data is the most effective route to progress in general AI; Limitations (p. 33) says language-model pre-training is likely to hit limits and may need other approaches. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredPre-training by itself is responsible for the bulk of the observed capabilities even in downstream tasks.
“Studies demonstrate that pre-training by itself is responsible for the bulk of the observed capabilities even in downstream tasks [23,150].”
From RLHF Deciphered: A Critical Analysis of Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback for LLMs (2026) · cites this paper as [23]
The Introduction (p. 5) reports promising downstream-task results in the zero-shot setting, without fine-tuning, supporting the role of pre-training. It also reports improvements from inference-time examples and does not establish that pre-training by itself accounts for the bulk of the observed capabilities. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredGPT-3 was trained on a vast corpus of 45 terabytes of text sourced from internet-based entities like Common Crawl and Wikipedia.
“GPT-3's training on a vast corpus of 45 terabytes of text, sourced from a variety of internet-based entities like Common Crawl and Wikipedia, set a precedent for the scale of data utilised in AI development (Brown et al., 2020;Rudolph et al., 2023a).”
From Higher Education's Generative Artificial Intelligence Paradox: The Meaning of Chatbot Mania (2024) · cites this paper as Brown et al., 2020
Section 2.2 (p. 8) confirms that GPT-3’s training mix included Common Crawl and English-language Wikipedia. But its 45 TB figure describes compressed Common Crawl text before filtering, not the corpus GPT-3 was trained on; the paper says that data was 570 GB after filtering. (LLM, conf=0.93)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredRecent pre-trained LLMs such as GPT-3 and ChatGPT can engage in fluent, multi-turn conversations out-of-the-box.
“Recent pre-trained LLMs (e.g., GPT-3 [8], ChatGPT [1]) can engage in fuent, multi-turn conversations outof-the-box”
From Why Johnny Can’t Prompt: How Non-AI Experts Try (and Fail) to Design LLM Prompts (2023) · cites this paper as [8]
The citation to this paper is attached to GPT-3, not ChatGPT. Section 3.6 (p. 18) reports strong GPT-3 performance on a conversational question-answering dataset, and the Introduction (p. 5) says it can perform tasks without fine-tuning. Those findings do not establish that GPT-3 can engage in fluent, multi-turn conversations out of the box; the reported conversational result is in a few-shot setting. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe only adaptable component of LLMs is their in-context learning ability.
“The only adaptable component of LLMs is their in-context learning ability-a (known to be emergent) characteristic of LLMs that enables fast adaption to the context and so perform zero- or few-shot tasks (Brown et al. 2020).”
From Nested Learning: The Illusion of Deep Learning Architectures (2025) · cites this paper as Brown et al. 2020
The Introduction (pp. 3–5) describes in-context learning as rapid adaptation to a task using instructions or demonstrations, including zero- and few-shot settings. But the claim that it is the only adaptable component is contrary to §2 Approach (p. 6), which says model weights can also be adapted through fine-tuning and that GPT-3 could be fine-tuned in principle. (LLM, conf=0.90)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredLLMs such as GPT-4 and LLaMA rely on massive pre-training datasets sourced from the open Internet.
“LLMs such as GPT-4 (refs. 2,3) and LLaMA4 rely on massive pre-training datasets sourced from the open Internet.”
From Medical large language models are vulnerable to data-poisoning attacks (2025) · cites this paper as [2]
Section 2.2, “Training Dataset” (p. 8), reports that GPT-3 was trained on a large mixture including Common Crawl and other internet-derived corpora. The paper supports the general point about large-scale web-sourced pre-training, but it does not establish the training datasets used by GPT-4 or LLaMA. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredLanguage models can potentially suffer from biases because their training data is based on text crawled from the internet that has not specifically been checked for bias.
“Just as with any other type of AI that is based on large amounts of data, language models can potentially suffer from biases. Most models use training data based on text crawled from the internet. Such text generally has not specifically been checked for bias.”
From Augmenting human innovation teams with artificial intelligence: Exploring transformer-based language models (2023) · cites this paper as Brown et al., 2020
Section 6.2 (p. 36) says biases in training data may lead to prejudiced output and that internet-trained models reflect stereotypes in their data. Section 2.2 (p. 8) describes GPT-3’s internet-sourced training data, but the paper does not establish that most language models use crawled text or that such text generally has not been checked specifically for bias; its described filtering was for quality and duplication. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredCurrent mainstream VLMs are pre-trained on large-scale Transformer architectures with billions or tens of billions of parameters, requiring large computational resources and time, limiting training efficiency and scale-up and causing deployment bottlenecks.
“Current mainstream VLMs [209,206,204,208] are usually pre-trained based on large-scale Transformer architectures, which usually have billions or even tens of billions of parameters, and pre-training on large-scale datasets requires a large amount of computational resources and time costs, which limits the training efficiency and scale-up ability of the models, and makes the model deployment face”
From Multimodal fusion and vision–language models: A survey for robot vision (2026) · cites this paper as [208]
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredTransformer models like Copilot can best be seen as continuing the prompt they were given, so Codex will generate code of similar sophistication to the prompt, including more bugs if prompted with buggy code.
“However, transformer models like Copilot can best be seen as continuing the prompt they were given. This has the effect that Codex will generate code of a similar level of sophistication to the code which it was prompted with, including the possibility of introducing more bugs if prompted with buggy code [22].”
From “It’s Weird That it Knows What I Want”: Usability and Interactions with Copilot for Novice Programmers (2024) · cites this paper as [22]
The Introduction (p. 3) describes an autoregressive language model completing a prompt by predicting what comes next, supporting the prompt-continuation part of the claim. The paper does not establish that Codex matches a code prompt’s sophistication or introduces more bugs when prompted with buggy code; its mention of code auto-completion in Broader Impacts (p. 34) does not establish those effects. (LLM, conf=0.87)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredWithin the past five years, NLP advancements have achieved huge gains in accuracy on standard datasets, with state-of-the-art accuracy as high as 99% for certain tasks.
“Within the past five years, advancements in NLP have achieved huge gains in accuracy when tested against standard datasets [8, 18, 34, 56, 58, 60, 63], with state-ofthe-art accuracy in natural language processing models as high as 99% for certain tasks [8, 34].”
From A Mixed-Methods Approach to Understanding User Trust after Voice Assistant Failures (2023) · cites this paper as [8]
The Abstract (p. 1) reports substantial gains on NLP tasks and benchmarks, supporting the broad claim about progress on standard datasets. But the paper does not substantiate the attributed figure of state-of-the-art accuracy as high as 99%; the fine-tuned state-of-the-art accuracies shown in its SuperGLUE table (Section 3.7, p. 19) top out at 96.9%. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn-context learning facilitates adaptation to novel tasks without parameter updates by leveraging demonstration examples within prompts, with performance significantly influenced by example selection and ordering strategies.
“Incontext learning facilitates adaptation to novel tasks without parameter updates by leveraging demonstration examples within prompts, with performance significantly influenced by example selection and ordering strategies [369, 103, 1296, 1024, 928, 852, 1148, 352, 582].”
From A Survey of Context Engineering for Large Language Models (2025) · cites this paper as [103]
The Approach (p. 6) describes adapting to a task by conditioning on demonstration examples at inference time without updating model weights. The Evaluation section (p. 10) says the authors randomly draw examples and sometimes choose the number of examples using a development set, but it does not establish that example-selection and ordering strategies significantly influence performance. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredFew-shot prompting extends zero-shot capability by incorporating limited exemplars to guide model responses, demonstrating task execution through strategic example selection.
“Few-shot prompting extends this capability by incorporating limited exemplars to guide model responses, demonstrating task execution through strategic example selection [1371, 405, 103, 552, 794, 1381].”
From A Survey of Context Engineering for Large Language Models (2025) · cites this paper as [103]
The Approach (p. 6–7) distinguishes few-shot prompting, which supplies task demonstrations at inference time, from zero-shot prompting, which supplies none. This supports the role of limited exemplars in guiding responses. The claim's reference to strategic example selection goes beyond the paper's description: Evaluation (p. 10) says conditioning examples were randomly drawn, although the number of examples could be chosen using a development set. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredModern LLM short-term memory frequently manifests as in-context learning, reflecting models' ability to acquire and process information temporarily within context windows.
“Modern LLM short-term memory frequently manifests as in-context learning, reflecting models' ability to acquire and process information temporarily within context windows [1189, 103].”
From A Survey of Context Engineering for Large Language Models (2025) · cites this paper as [103]
The Introduction (pp. 3–5) describes in-context learning as using instructions or demonstrations within a model’s context window to adapt at inference time. Related Work (p. 40) says this adaptation occurs without weight updates. The paper does not characterize it as short-term memory or establish how frequently it manifests across modern LLMs; it also leaves open whether models acquire new tasks or recognize learned patterns. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe scaling up of network and training data leads to leap-forward capabilities in LLMs, including emergent abilities such as in-context learning, instruction following, and step-by-step reasoning.
“The scaling up of network and training data lead to the leap-forward of large language models' capability.”
From When large language models meet personalization: perspectives of challenges and opportunities (2024) · cites this paper as [3]
The Approach (p. 6) says the authors scaled up model size and training-data size, and the Introduction (pp. 3–4) links larger models to improved performance and in-context learning. But Related Work (p. 39) describes the gains across many tasks as relatively smooth, not a leap forward; the cited passages also do not establish step-by-step reasoning as a capability arising from that scaling. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredMany works trace their methodologies for prompted evaluation to Brown et al. (2020), who thoroughly document the majority of their evaluation setups, despite not releasing code.
“Many works, for example, trace their methodologies for prompted evaluation to Brown et al. (2020), who rather thoroughly document the majority of their evaluation setups, despite not releasing code.”
From Lessons from the Trenches on Reproducible Evaluation of Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as Brown et al., 2020
Section 2.4 (p. 10) explains the few-shot evaluation procedure, and Appendix G (p. 53) gives task-format examples, supporting the claim that Brown et al. document their evaluation setups. The passages do not establish that the authors did not release code. The statement about many later works tracing their methods to Brown et al. is the citing authors’ framing, not something this source can establish. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredToken-length normalization requires no additional LM calls and is used alternately with raw loglikelihoods for most tasks by Brown et al. (2020).
“Token-length normalization : each a i 's loglikelihood is divided by m i , its length in tokens, to gain the per-token loglikelihood of each answer. This approach requires no additional LM calls, and is used alternately with raw loglikelihoods for most tasks by Brown et al. (2020).”
From Lessons from the Trenches on Reproducible Evaluation of Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as Brown et al. (2020)
The Evaluation section (p. 10) says Brown et al. compare per-token likelihood for most multiple-choice tasks, normalizing for length; this supports the token-length normalization described in the citing sentence. It does not say they alternate that method with raw loglikelihoods for most tasks. Instead, it identifies a small number of datasets for which they normalize by each completion’s unconditional probability. Dividing an already computed loglikelihood by token count does not require an additional LM call. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredPrompt learning methods can adapt pre-trained transformers to target domains by training very few parameters and achieve comparable performance with finetuning the whole heavy model.
“prompt learning methods [2,5,8,16,18,32,42] emerge recently as efficient and effective solutions for adapting pre-trained transformers to the target domain via only training very few parameters (i.e., prompts), and achieve comparable performance with finetuning the whole heavy model.”
From Multimodal Prompting with Missing Modalities for Visual Recognition (2023) · cites this paper as [5]
The Abstract (p. 1) reports that GPT-3's few-shot performance was sometimes competitive with fine-tuning approaches. But it also says tasks were specified through text with no gradient updates or fine-tuning; the Few-Shot description in §2 (p. 6) likewise allows no weight updates. The paper therefore does not support the claim that this method adapts models by training a small number of prompt parameters. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe choice of examples can drastically alter the output of large language models.
“Brown et al. [5] highlighted that the choice of examples can drastically alter the output of large language models.”
From Demonstration Attack against In-Context Learning for Code Intelligence (2024) · cites this paper as [5]
The Introduction (p. 5) reports that adding examples to the context improves model performance, and §3.1.2 (p. 12) explains that examples can lead the model to produce a one-word completion. These passages support the idea that examples affect output, but they do not establish that choosing different examples can drastically alter it. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredLLMs' offline training paradigm often limits access to customized and up-to-date information.
“their offline training paradigm often limits access to customized and up-to-date information.”
From RepoCoder: Repository-Level Code Completion Through Iterative Retrieval and Generation (2023) · cites this paper as Brown et al., 2020
Section 3.2 (p. 13) describes GPT-3's closed-book question-answering setting as one in which external content is not available, supporting a limitation on access to information in that setting. The Introduction (p. 3) also describes the need for task-specific data and fine-tuning. Neither passage establishes the broader claim that offline training often limits access to customized or up-to-date information. (LLM, conf=0.81)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredTransformers' computational efficiency and scalability have made it possible to train models of unprecedented size, with over 100B parameters.
“Thanks to Transformers' computational efficiency and scalability, it has become possible to train models of unprecedented size, with over 100B parameters (Brown et al., 2020; Lepikhin et al., 2020).”
From An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scale (2020) · cites this paper as Brown et al., 2020
Model and Architectures (p. 8) identifies GPT-3 as a transformer model trained with 175 billion parameters, supporting the claim that models exceeding 100 billion parameters became trainable. Training Process (p. 9) attributes the ability to train larger models without running out of memory to model parallelism, while Energy Usage (p. 39) describes training as computationally intensive. The paper does not establish that transformers’ computational efficiency made that scale possible. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn-context learning learns a new task via inference alone by conditioning on a concatenation of training data as demonstrations, without gradient updates.
“the LM learns a new task via inference alone by conditioning on a concatenation of the training data as demonstrations, without any gradient updates.”
From Rethinking the Role of Demonstrations: What Makes In-Context Learning Work? (2022) · cites this paper as Brown et al., 2020
The Approach (p. 6) describes conditioning the model on a few task demonstrations at inference time without weight updates. But the Introduction (p. 4) explicitly leaves open whether the model learns a new task at inference time or recognizes a pattern learned during training, so the claim is too definite on that point. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredA limiting factor for in-context learning (ICL) in LLMs is the context window, restricting prior research to the few-shot ICL regime.
“A limiting factor for in-context learning (ICL) in LLMs is the context window, restricting prior research to the few-shot ICL regime.”
From Many-Shot In-Context Learning (2024) · cites this paper as [8]
The Approach (p. 6) says GPT-3's context window held typically 10–100 demonstrations, supporting the context-window limit on the number of examples. But the paper does not establish that prior ICL research was restricted to few-shot learning; the Introduction (pp. 4–5) explicitly distinguishes zero-, one-, and few-shot settings. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredBrown et al. reported improved performance as you increase the number of examples up to 64 for in-context learning in LLMs, and later works corroborated this finding.
“Brown et al. [8] reported improved performance as you increase the number of examples (up to 64) for in-context learning in LLMs , and later works corroborated this finding [39].”
From Many-Shot In-Context Learning (2024) · cites this paper as [8]
The Introduction (p. 5) says performance generally improves as the number of in-context examples increases, and Figure 3.8 (p. 20) reports that trend for SuperGLUE. But the paper does not establish improvement specifically up to 64 examples; its Evaluation section (p. 10) says larger numbers are usually, but not always, better. The statement about later works is attached to a different citation, not Brown et al. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredACE offers a flexible and efficient alternative to conventional model finetuning, as adapting contexts is generally cheaper than updating model weights.
“ACE offers a flexible and efficient alternative to conventional model finetuning, as adapting contexts is generally cheaper than updating model weights”
From Agentic Context Engineering: Evolving Contexts for Self-Improving Language Models (2025) · cites this paper as Brown et al., 2020
The Approach section (p. 6) contrasts few-shot in-context learning, which requires no weight updates and less task-specific data, with fine-tuning, which updates model weights. It does not evaluate ACE or establish that adapting contexts is generally cheaper than updating weights. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredChatGPT's superiority over its GPT-based predecessors can be linked to its ability to respond to multiple languages and generate refined and highly sophisticated responses based on advanced modeling.
“The superiority of ChatGPT compared to its GPT-based predecessors can be linked to its ability to respond to multiple languages generating refined and highly sophisticated responses based on advanced modeling [6,7].”
From ChatGPT Utility in Healthcare Education, Research, and Practice: Systematic Review on the Promising Perspectives and Valid Concerns (2023) · cites this paper as [7]
Section 3.3 (p. 14) describes GPT-3’s multilingual training data and translation performance, while Section 5 (p. 33) reports improvements in GPT-3’s text generation over GPT-2. The paper does not evaluate ChatGPT or link any superiority of ChatGPT over earlier GPT models to multilingual responses or more sophisticated output. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredChatGPT is based on the generative pre-trained transformer (GPT) architecture.
“Developed by OpenAI (OpenAI, L.L.C., San Francisco, CA, USA), ChatGPT etymology is related to being a chatbot (a program able to understand and generate responses using a text-based interface) and is based on the generative pre-trained transformer (GPT) architecture [6,7].”
From ChatGPT Utility in Healthcare Education, Research, and Practice: Systematic Review on the Promising Perspectives and Valid Concerns (2023) · cites this paper as [7]
Section 2.1 (p. 8) describes GPT-3 as using a transformer-based GPT architecture. It does not discuss ChatGPT or establish that ChatGPT is based on that architecture, so it supports the architectural background but not the claim about ChatGPT specifically. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredPrompting methods are particularly useful in few-shot learning because there are generally not enough training examples to fully specify the desired behavior.
“Prompting methods are particularly useful in the latter case [9,32,117], as there are generally not enough training examples to fully specify the desired behavior, and thus using a prompt to push the model in the right direction is particularly effective.”
From Pre-train, Prompt, and Predict: A Systematic Survey of Prompting Methods in Natural Language Processing (2023) · cites this paper as [9]
The Introduction (p. 5) reports that adding a natural-language task description improves performance in a few-shot example, and Evaluation (p. 10) says the authors sometimes use prompts alongside demonstrations. The paper does not establish the broader explanation that few-shot examples are generally insufficient to fully specify the desired behavior. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredLarge-scale pre-training allows LMs to handle linguistic phenomena such as analogies, negations, semantic role sensitivity, semantic similarity, cant understanding, and rare word understanding.
“Besides factual knowledge, large-scale pre-training also allows LMs to handle linguistic phenomena such as analogies [9], negations [25], semantic role sensitivity [25], semantic similarity [131], cant understanding [131], and rare word understanding [116].”
From Pre-train, Prompt, and Predict: A Systematic Survey of Prompting Methods in Natural Language Processing (2023) · cites this paper as [9]
The citation to Brown et al. is attached to rare word understanding, not the other listed phenomena. Section 3.9.5 (pp. 26, 29) reports that GPT-3 plausibly used newly defined, nonexistent words in sentences. It does not test understanding of rare existing words or inferring a word’s meaning from its usage. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredPre-trained embeddings and LMs can perform simple operations such as addition and subtraction when the number of digits is small but fail when the numbers are larger.
“Within the context of pre-trained LMs, researchers have found that pre-trained embeddings and LMs can perform simple operations such as addition and subtraction when the number of digits is small but fail when the numbers are larger [9,88,139].”
From Pre-train, Prompt, and Predict: A Systematic Survey of Prompting Methods in Natural Language Processing (2023) · cites this paper as [9]
Section 3.9.1 (p. 22) reports that GPT-3 performs addition and subtraction well with small numbers and that accuracy decreases as digit count increases. It does not test pre-trained embeddings, and GPT-3 still answers some four- and five-digit problems correctly, so 'fail when the numbers are larger' overstates the result. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe increasingly large context length of LLMs enables in-context learning (ICL) by incorporating more documents, enhancing the model's ability to capture intricate writing patterns.
“The increasingly large context length of LLMs enables in-context learning (ICL) [Brown et al., 2020] by incorporating more documents, enhancing the model's ability to capture intricate writing patterns.”
From Authorship Attribution in the Era of LLMs: Problems, Methodologies, and Challenges (2025) · cites this paper as Brown et al., 2020
The Introduction (p. 5) describes in-context learning with as many demonstrations as fit in the model’s context window, and §3.7 (p. 20) reports improved performance with more examples in context. These passages support the role of context capacity in ICL, but they do not establish that incorporating more documents enhances the model’s ability to capture intricate writing patterns. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredGenerative AI models such as GPT-3 and DALL·E remain reactive generating content solely in response to prompts without maintaining a persistent state or engaging in iterative reasoning.
“Generative AI models such as GPT-3 [120] and DALL·E https://openai.com/index/dall-e-3/, remain reactive generating content solely in response to prompts without maintaining a persistent state or engaging in iterative reasoning.”
From AI Agents vs. Agentic AI: A Conceptual Taxonomy, Applications and Challenges (2025) · cites this paper as [120]
The Introduction (p. 3) describes GPT-3 as generating completions conditioned on text instructions or demonstrations, and the Approach (p. 6) says its few-shot setting involves no weight updates. Those passages support prompt-conditioned generation, but they do not establish that GPT-3 lacks persistent state or cannot engage in iterative reasoning. This paper does not address the sentence’s separate reference to DALL·E. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThese networks are trained through unsupervised machine learning on enormous amounts of text from various sources, predominantly open-domain web resources, with academic content constituting only a small fraction.
“These networks are trained through unsupervised machine learning methods on enormous amounts of text from various sources, predominantly open-domain web resources, with academic content constituting only a small fraction (Brown et al., 2020).”
From Large language models for automated scholarly paper review: A survey (2025) · cites this paper as Brown et al., 2020
Section 1 (p. 3) describes unsupervised pre-training, and Section 2.2 (p. 8) describes a large training mixture drawn from Common Crawl, WebText, internet books, and Wikipedia. The paper does not quantify how much of that mixture is academic content, so it does not establish that academic content constitutes only a small fraction. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredMany current coding benchmarks are susceptible to contamination because widely used open-source repositories are prime candidates for inclusion in large-scale web-crawled pre-training corpora.
“First, many benchmarks are susceptible to contamination [7, 13, 15, 20], as exemplified by recent works [5, 7, 15] and social media posts [1, 19]. This risk arises because widely used open-source repositories-particularly those distributed under permissive licenses (e.g., MIT, Apache 2.0, BSD)-are prime candidates for inclusion in the large-scale web-crawled corpora used to pre-train LLMs [3].”
From SWE-Bench Pro: Can AI Agents Solve Long-Horizon Software Engineering Tasks? (2025) · cites this paper as [3]
Section 2.2 (p. 8) says GPT-3 was trained partly on Common Crawl, and Section 4 (p. 29) identifies benchmark contamination as a risk when training data comes from the internet. The paper does not establish that widely used open-source repositories, including those with permissive licenses, are especially likely to enter those corpora, or address coding benchmarks specifically. (LLM, conf=0.87)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredPrompt-tuned T5-Small matches GPT-3 XL (over 16 times larger), and prompt-tuned T5-Large beats GPT-3 175B (over 220 times larger).
“Figure 1 shows that prompt tuning beats GPT-3 prompt design by a large margin, with prompttuned T5-Small matching GPT-3 XL (over 16 times larger), and prompt-tuned T5-Large beating GPT-3 175B (over 220 times larger).”
From The Power of Scale for Parameter-Efficient Prompt Tuning (2021) · cites this paper as Brown et al. (2020)
The model table in §2 (p. 8) identifies GPT-3 XL as 1.3B parameters and GPT-3 as 175B parameters. The cited paper does not report prompt-tuned T5-Small or T5-Large matching or beating those models, nor does it establish the stated size ratios; those comparisons are attributed to the citing paper’s Figure 1. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredFine-tuning improves model performance drastically compared to few-shot learning on datasets large and small.
“As shown in Table 8, fine-tuning improves the model performance drastically compared to few-shot learning on datasets large and small.”
From LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Models (2021) · cites this paper as Brown et al., 2020
The Approach section (p. 6) says few-shot results had generally been much worse than state-of-the-art fine-tuned models, supporting the broad comparison. It does not establish a drastic improvement on both large and small datasets, and it says GPT-3 was not fine-tuned in this study. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredGPT-3 175B can adapt its behavior with just a few additional training examples, but the result depends heavily on the input prompt.
“While GPT-3 175B can adapt its behavior with just a few additional training examples, the result depends heavily on the input prompt (Brown et al., 2020).”
From LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Models (2021) · cites this paper as Brown et al., 2020
The Introduction (p. 5) reports that GPT-3 175B adapts to tasks using a few demonstrations. Section 6.2.1 (p. 36) shows that changing a prompt changes one measured outcome, but it does not establish that results generally depend heavily on the prompt. The Abstract (p. 1) also clarifies that the examples are supplied in context, without additional training or fine-tuning. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredPretrained LLMs cannot solve addition and parity robustly without careful prompting.
“even pretrained LLMs cannot solve these tasks robustly (Brown et al., 2020;Chowdhery et al., 2022;Anil et al., 2022) without careful prompting (Zhou et al., 2022b).”
From What Algorithms can Transformers Learn? A Study in Length Generalization (2023) · cites this paper as Brown et al., 2020
Section 3.9.1 (p. 22) supports a limitation for harder addition: GPT-3 achieved 25.5% few-shot accuracy on four-digit addition and 9.3% on five-digit addition. But it achieved 100% on two-digit addition, so the claim is too broad for addition generally. The paper does not report a parity task; the separate citation to Zhou et al. is attached to the careful-prompting qualification. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredAgentic evaluations are inherently stochastic processes.
“Agentic evaluations are inherently stochastic processes.”
From Stochasticity in Agentic Evaluations: Quantifying Inconsistency with Intraclass Correlation (2025) · cites this paper as Brown et al. 2020
Section 6.1.3 (p. 35) says language-model outputs are stochastic and discusses a bot that may occasionally produce incoherent outputs. It does not establish that agentic evaluations themselves are inherently stochastic processes; the claim extends the point from model outputs to evaluations. (LLM, conf=0.80)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredUnderlying LLM models sample from probability distributions rather than deterministically computing outputs, introducing trial-to-trial variance.
“The underlying LLM models sample from probability distributions rather than deterministically computing outputs (Brown et al. 2020; Holtzman et al. 2020; He and Lab 2025), introducing trial-to-trial variance..”
From Stochasticity in Agentic Evaluations: Quantifying Inconsistency with Intraclass Correlation (2025) · cites this paper as Brown et al. 2020
Appendix F (p. 48) reports four GPT-3 completions from the same prompt, generated with temperature-1 nucleus sampling. This supports the point that sampled outputs can vary between trials, but the paper does not establish that LLM outputs are always sampled rather than produced with deterministic decoding. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredModern language models often have hundreds of billions of parameters.
“Following this trend, modern language models often have hundreds of billions of parameters (Brown et al., 2020; Rae et al., 2021; Zeng et al., 2021; Kim et al., 2021).”
From Petals: Collaborative Inference and Fine-tuning of Large Models (2022) · cites this paper as Brown et al., 2020
The Conclusion (p. 40) describes a 175-billion-parameter language model, supporting the point that modern models can be very large. It does not establish that models often have hundreds of billions of parameters; the cited model is also below 200 billion. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredUsing demonstrations with gold labels significantly improves performance over no demonstrations.
“using the demonstrations with gold labels significantly improves the performance over no demonstrations”
From Rethinking the Role of Demonstrations: What Makes In-Context Learning Work? (2022) · cites this paper as Brown et al., 2020
Copilot is powered by the OpenAI Codex family of models, derived by fine-tuning GPT-3 on public GitHub repositories.
“Copilot is powered by the OpenAI Codex family of models [Chen et al. 2021], which are derived by fine-tuning GPT-3 [Brown et al. 2020] on publicly available Github repositories.”
From Grounded Copilot: How Programmers Interact with Code-Generating Models (2023) · cites this paper as [Brown et al. 2020]
GPT models have shown exceptional performance in text generation-related tasks and significant few-shot learning capabilities.
“These models have shown exceptional performance in text generation-related tasks, and significant few-shot learning capabilities.”
From A review of LLMs and their applications in the architecture, engineering and construction industry (2025) · cites this paper as Brown et al. 2020
Training the 175B SFT model requires 4.9 petaflops/s-days, training the 175B PPO-ptx model requires 60 petaflops/s-days, and GPT-3 required 3,640 petaflops/s-days.
“training our 175B SFT model requires 4.9 petaflops/s-days and training our 175B PPO-ptx model requires 60 petaflops/s-days, compared to 3,640 petaflops/s-days for GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020).”
From Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback (2022) · cites this paper as Brown et al., 2020
Copilot is powered by the OpenAI Codex family of models, which are derived by fine-tuning GPT-3 on publicly available GitHub repositories.
“Copilot is powered by the OpenAI Codex family of models [Chen et al. 2021], which are derived by fine-tuning GPT-3 [Brown et al. 2020] on publicly available Github repositories.”
From Grounded Copilot: How Programmers Interact with Code-Generating Models (2023) · cites this paper as Brown et al. 2020
The LLM used in this work (GPT-3) is open to public use with easy registration and no user education.
“The LLM used in this work (i.e., GPT-3 [13]) is open to public use with easy registration and no user education.”
From Synthetic Lies: Understanding AI-Generated Misinformation and Evaluating Algorithmic and Human Solutions (2023) · cites this paper as [13]
Large language models have limitations such as lack of interpretability and potential for bias, and unexpected brittleness in relatively simple tasks.
“However, as previously mentioned, the use of these models should be done with caution, as they also have limitations such as lack of interpretability and potential for bias, unexpected brittleness in relatively simple tasks [9] which need to be addressed.”
From ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education (2023) · cites this paper as [9]
LLMs are limited in their ability to maintain and reason over long-term context.
“Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities across a wide range of tasks (Brown et al., 2020; Achiam et al., 2023; Wei et al., 2022), yet they remain limited in their ability to maintain and reason over long-term context.”
From MAGMA: A Multi-Graph based Agentic Memory Architecture for AI Agents (2026) · cites this paper as Brown et al., 2020
GPT-3 is an autoregressive language model that uses the transformer architecture.
“GPT-3 is an autoregressive language model (2), which utilizes the transformer architecture (9)—a deep learning model that heavily relies on the mechanism of self-attention—to produce human-like text.”
From Using cognitive psychology to understand GPT-3 (2023) · cites this paper as [2]
Very large models may be able to perform additions and multiplications with 3 or fewer digits few-shot.
“In this experiment, we evaluate in the few-shot regime using a 137B parameter pre-trained decoder-only model, as previous work indicates that very large models may be able to perform additions and multiplications with 3 or fewer digits few-shot (Brown et al., 2020).”
From Show Your Work: Scratchpads for Intermediate Computation with Language Models (2021) · cites this paper as Brown et al., 2020
GPT-3 struggles to perform few-shot addition on numbers with greater than three digits.
“For example, GPT-3 struggles to perform few-shot addition on numbers with greater than three digits (Brown et al., 2020).”
From Show Your Work: Scratchpads for Intermediate Computation with Language Models (2021) · cites this paper as Brown et al., 2020
Large pre-trained language models perform remarkably well on tasks that can be done 'in one pass', such as generating realistic text or synthesizing computer programs.
“Large pre-trained language models perform remarkably well on tasks that can be done 'in one pass', such as generating realistic text (Brown et al., 2020) or synthesizing computer programs (Chen et al., 2021; Austin et al., 2021).”
From Show Your Work: Scratchpads for Intermediate Computation with Language Models (2021) · cites this paper as Brown et al., 2020
LLMs have evolved to exhibit graduate-level STEM proficiency, generate hypotheses, synthesize literature, and draft manuscripts.
“From simple next-token predictors [1, 2], large language models (LLMs) have evolved to exhibit graduate-level STEM proficiency [3-5], generate hypotheses [6, 7], synthesize literature [8], and draft manuscripts [9].”
From When AI Co-Scientists Fail: SPOT-a Benchmark for Automated Verification of Scientific Research (2025) · cites this paper as [2]
Min et al. has shown that in-context learning works by activating patterns from the training data.
“Min et al. [44] has shown that rather than learning new tasks, in-context learning [42] works by activating patterns from the training data.”
From RoboPoint: A Vision-Language Model for Spatial Affordance Prediction for Robotics (2024) · cites this paper as [42]
Pretrained language models, especially large ones, appear to have significantly improved sample efficiency when learning new tasks.
“However, pretrained language models, especially large ones, appear to have significantly improved sample efficiency when learning new tasks [1,59,60]”
From Symbols and grounding in large language models (2023) · cites this paper as [1]
Early work on few-shot learning and prompt engineering found that the LLM could be further biased towards high-quality productions by pre-processing the input string.
“Early work on few-shot learning (Brown et al., 2020) and prompt engineering (Wei et al., 2022b; Kojima et al., 2022; Xu et al., 2023c) found that the LLM could be further biased towards high-quality productions by pre-processing the input string.”
From Cognitive Architectures for Language Agents (2023) · cites this paper as Brown et al., 2020
GPT-3 unlocked flexible few-shot and zero-shot reasoning for NLP tasks.
“GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020) unlocked flexible few-shot and zero-shot reasoning for NLP tasks”
From Cognitive Architectures for Language Agents (2023) · cites this paper as Brown et al., 2020
LLM workloads contain massive prefix redundancy: system prompts repeated across thousands of requests, few-shot examples, retrieval-augmented contexts.
“LLM workloads contain massive prefix redundancy: system prompts repeated across thousands of requests, few-shot examples [32], retrieval-augmented contexts.”
From Janus: Joint Prefill/Decode Disaggregation with KV-Cache-Aware Multi-Cloud Routing for Edge-Adjacent LLM Serving (2026) · cites this paper as [32]
In a different but plausible world in which MMLU-style prompting was the standard introduced in Brown et al. (2020), the perceived performance of GPT-NeoX-20B and other models trained on the Pile would be extremely low, despite strong results that would be observed in the 'cloze' setting.
“in a different but plausible world in which MMLU-style prompting was the standard introduced in Brown et al. (2020), the perceived performance of GPT-NeoX-20B and other models trained on the Pile (Gao et al., 2020) would be extremely low, despite strong results that would be observed in the 'cloze' setting.”
From Lessons from the Trenches on Reproducible Evaluation of Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as Brown et al. (2020)
Each object is associated with fully simulatable object states (e.g., apple with cooked and sliced, but not toggledOn).
“Through crowdworkers, students, and GPT-3 [58], we also associate each object with our fully simulatable object states: for example, apple is associated with cooked and sliced , but not toggledOn .”
From BEHAVIOR-1K: A Human-Centered, Embodied AI Benchmark with 1,000 Everyday Activities and Realistic Simulation (2024) · cites this paper as [58]
All properties that apply to many of the 2,964 leaf synsets and therefore require large-scale annotation are done by either GPT-3 or crowdworkers.
“All properties that apply to many of the 2,964 leaf synsets and therefore require a large-scale annotation are done by either GPT-3 [58] or crowdworkers.”
From BEHAVIOR-1K: A Human-Centered, Embodied AI Benchmark with 1,000 Everyday Activities and Realistic Simulation (2024) · cites this paper as [58]
LLMs consist of neural networks trained on extensive text corpora to identify probable word and language patterns, which are then stored as weights within the neural network.
“LLMs consist of neural networks trained on extensive text corpora to identify probable word and language patterns, which are then stored as weights within the neural network (Brown et al., 2020; Vaswani et al., 2017).”
From Using ChatGPT and Other Large Language Model (LLM) Applications for Academic Paper Assignments (2023) · cites this paper as Brown et al., 2020
LLMs are designed to predict probable language outputs in response to specific prompts, such as predicting the most likely word following a sequence of words or generating sentences or paragraphs as plausible responses to a given textual prompt.
“Large language models (LLMs) are designed to predict probable language outputs in response to specific prompts, such as predicting the most likely word following a sequence of words or generating sentences or paragraphs as plausible responses to a given textual prompt.”
From Using ChatGPT and Other Large Language Model (LLM) Applications for Academic Paper Assignments (2023) · cites this paper as Brown et al., 2020
Language models reproduce stereotypes and biases.
“Initial audits also highlight that language models reproduce stereotypes and biases [23, 54, 83]”
From Co-Writing with Opinionated Language Models Affects Users’ Views (2023) · cites this paper as [23]
ChatGPT is a variant of the GPT-3 artificial intelligence language model developed by OpenAI.
“ChatGPT is a variant of the GPT-3 (Generative Pre-trained Transformer 3, Brown et al., 2020) artificial intelligence language model developed by OpenAI.”
From Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT (2024) · cites this paper as Brown et al., 2020
In-context learning is a key ability that enables LLMs to adapt to new tasks on the fly.
“In-context learning (ICL) is a key ability that enables LLMs to adapt to new tasks on the fly (Brown et al., 2020).”
From HELMET: How to Evaluate Long-Context Language Models Effectively and Thoroughly (2024) · cites this paper as Brown et al., 2020
Providing examples of desired interactions in prompts substantially improved GPT-3's performance on a battery of tasks such as question answering and language translation.
“The original GPT-3 paper demonstrated that examples substantially improved the performance of GPT-3 on a battery of tasks such as question answering and language translation [9].”
From Why Johnny Can’t Prompt: How Non-AI Experts Try (and Fail) to Design LLM Prompts (2023) · cites this paper as [9]
Large language models have demonstrated exceptional language generation capabilities across various domains.
“Recently, large language models (LLMs) (Brown et al., 2020;Ouyang et al., 2022;OpenAI, 2023) have demonstrated exceptional language generation capabilities across various domains.”
From On the Risk of Misinformation Pollution with Large Language Models (2023) · cites this paper as Brown et al., 2020
LLM approaches rely on training on as large and varied a collection of language data as possible to extract general properties of a language.
“These practical applications of language technology are increasingly reliant on approaches based on trained Large Language Models (LLMs) [23, 41, 104, 111], whereby models are first exposed to as large and varied a collection of language data as possible with the aim of extracting 'general' properties of a language of interest.”
From Data Governance in the Age of Large-Scale Data-Driven Language Technology (2022) · cites this paper as [23]
Pretrained language models can recall and use stored information more accurately as their scale increases.
“they can recall and use this information more accurately with increasing scale (Brown et al., 2020).”
From Memory Layers at Scale (2024) · cites this paper as Brown et al., 2020
Brown et al. (2020) report that the GPT-3 model with 175 billion parameters used 3.14·10^23 floating point operations of compute to train using NVIDIA V100 GPUs on a cluster provided by Microsoft.
“Brown et al. (2020) report that the GPT-3 model with 175 billion parameters used 3 . 14 · 10 23 floating point operations (FPOs) of compute to train using NVIDIA V100 GPUs on a cluster provided by Microsoft.”
From Carbontracker: Tracking and Predicting the Carbon Footprint of Training Deep Learning Models (2020) · cites this paper as Brown et al. (2020)
Foundation models aim to supply broad knowledge and skills that can be adapted through fine-tuning or prompting.
“These models are designed to provide a strong foundation of general knowledge and skills that can be built upon and adapted to new situations via fine-tuning or prompting with demonstrations (Brown et al., 2020).”
From Human-Timescale Adaptation in an Open-Ended Task Space (2023) · cites this paper as Brown et al., 2020
Foundation models usually need large and varied datasets to reach their generality.
“Foundation models typically require large, diverse datasets to achieve their generality (Brown et al., 2020; Mahajan et al., 2018; Schuhmann et al., 2022; Sun et al., 2017; Zhai et al., 2022).”
From Human-Timescale Adaptation in an Open-Ended Task Space (2023) · cites this paper as Brown et al., 2020
Few-shot prompting provides a model with a prompt consisting of k in-context examples of the target task, each in the form of input-output pairs.
“Few-shot prompting (also referred to as”
From Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback (2023) · cites this paper as Brown et al., 2020
API calls to a publicly available LLM expose the study to variable inference time calls and unforeseen model updates.
“We utilize API calls to a publicly available LLM (Brown et al., 2020) which, whilst sufficient in the context of our investigation, exposes us to variable inference time calls and unforeseen model updates.”
From Should we be going MAD? A Look at Multi-Agent Debate Strategies for LLMs (2023) · cites this paper as Brown et al., 2020
Few-shot prompting instructs the language model to solve a task with several input-output demonstrations.
“Few-shot prompting instructs the language model to solve a task with several input-output demonstrations (Brown et al., 2020).”
From Teaching Large Language Models to Self-Debug (2023) · cites this paper as Brown et al., 2020
The capabilities of transformer-based language models significantly improve with model size.
“Because the capabilities of these models significantly improve with model size (Brown et al., 2020; Radford et al., 2019; Tamkin et al., 2021)”
From Augmenting human innovation teams with artificial intelligence: Exploring transformer-based language models (2023) · cites this paper as Brown et al., 2020
Developers of models like GPT-3 seem to be aware of the bias problem and discuss gender, race, and religious biases in their article.
“Developers of models like GPT-3 seem to be aware of this problem and discuss gender, race, and religious biases in their article (Brown et al., 2020).”
From Augmenting human innovation teams with artificial intelligence: Exploring transformer-based language models (2023) · cites this paper as Brown et al., 2020
The language module uses BioGPT, an autoregressive generative model based on the Transformer decoder architecture of GPT-3, trained on 15 million biomedical articles from PubMed with a vocabulary size of 42,384.
“Our language module uses BioGPT23, an autoregressive generative model based on the Transformer24 decoder architecture of GPT-325, trained on 15 million biomedical articles from PubMed with a vocabulary size of 42,384.”
From Generating dermatopathology reports from gigapixel whole slide images with HistoGPT (2025) · cites this paper as [25]
State-of-the-art LLMs are generally implemented using the Transformer architecture, a multi-layer feedforward network with attention mechanism.
“State-of-the-art LLMs [66, 67, 7, 52] are generally implemented using the Transformer architecture, which is a multi-layer feedforward network equipped with attention mechanism [71].”
From Hallucination is Inevitable: An Innate Limitation of Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [7]
LLMs store extensive knowledge during pre-training and recall it during inference.
“Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated the capability to store extensive knowledge during pre-training and recall it during inference”
From AlphaEdit: Null-Space Constrained Knowledge Editing for Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as Brown et al., 2020
The emergence of large language models, represented by GPT-3, marks an important milestone for the AI community.
“There has been tremendous progress in language models in recent years, where the emergence of large language models, represented by GPT-3 [3], marks an important milestone for the entire AI community.”
From When large language models meet personalization: perspectives of challenges and opportunities (2024) · cites this paper as [3]
Given a natural language instruction and task demonstrations, LLMs generate output by completing the word sequence without training or tuning.
“In-context learning [167-173] is one of the emergent abilities of LLMs that differentiate LLMsfrompreviouspre-trainedlanguagemodels,where,givenanaturallanguageinstruction and task demonstrations, LLMs would generate the output by completing the word sequence without training or tuning [3].”
From When large language models meet personalization: perspectives of challenges and opportunities (2024) · cites this paper as [3]
Large language models are widely known to leverage extensive amounts of open-domain knowledge during their training and fine-tuning processes, including Wikipedia, books, and various websites.
“Large language models are widely known to leverage extensive amounts of open-domain knowledge during their training and fine-tuning processes. These knowledge sources include well-known references such as Wikipedia, books, and various websites [3].”
From When large language models meet personalization: perspectives of challenges and opportunities (2024) · cites this paper as [3]
The mutual information approach is nonstandard, provided in lm-eval under acc mutual info, and used selectively by Brown et al. (2020) and Askell et al. (2021) for certain tasks.
“Although this approach is nonstandard, it is provided in lm-eval under the option acc mutual info , and used selectively by Brown et al. (2020) and Askell et al. (2021) for certain tasks.”
From Lessons from the Trenches on Reproducible Evaluation of Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as Brown et al. (2020)
The three primitive operations implemented in lm-eval are sufficient to implement the major ways in the literature that have been used to evaluate LMs.
“Provided with these three primitive operations, we are able to implement the major ways in the literature that have been used to evaluate LMs (Gao et al. (2020), Brown et al. (2020), inter alia ).”
From Lessons from the Trenches on Reproducible Evaluation of Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as Brown et al. (2020)
AI-generated content (from GPT-3 and similar models) can be difficult to distinguish from human-written content.
“As these models are trained on human-written texts, the content generated by these tools can be quite difficult to distinguish from human-written content.”
From Testing of detection tools for AI-generated text (2023) · cites this paper as Brown et al. 2020
Brown et al. first showed that GPT-3 has the ability to learn from a few examples in the context without parameter update.
“Brown et al. [11] first show that GPT-3 has the ability to learn from a few examples in the context without parameter update.”
From What Makes Good In-Context Demonstrations for Code Intelligence Tasks with LLMs? (2023) · cites this paper as [11]
The study relied on a zero-shot prompting strategy.
“While we relied on a zero-shot strategy (see Brown et al., 2020)”
From ChatGPT for President! Presupposed content in politicians versus GPT-generated texts (2025) · cites this paper as Brown et al., 2020
This inverse scaling contrasts with other NLP tasks, where performance improves with model size.
“This contrasts with other NLP tasks, where performance improves with model size.”
From TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human Falsehoods (2022) · cites this paper as Brown et al., 2020
Exploring many-shot ICL is now feasible, given the recent increase in context windows of publicly available LLMs by at least 100×.
“Exploring many-shot ICL is now feasible, given the recent increase in context windows of publicly available LLMs by at least 100 × : from only a few thousand tokens in GPT-3 [8] and Llama 2 [57] to 1M tokens in Gemini 1.5 Pro [16].”
From Many-Shot In-Context Learning (2024) · cites this paper as [8]
The paper's conclusions, especially regarding consciousness, apply to other models such as BERT, GPT-3, T5 and future models using the same or similar architectures.
“This means that our conclusions, especially regarding consciousness, apply to other models such as BERT [1], GPT-3 [2], T5 [4] and future models using the same, or similar, architectures.”
From Deanthropomorphising NLP: Can a language model be conscious? (2024) · cites this paper as [2]
Larger models are more capable.
“Behaving in an aligned fashion is just another capability, and many works have shown that larger models are more capable [Kaplan et al., 2020, Rosenfeld et al., 2019, Brown et al., 2020], finetune with greater sample efficiency [Henighan et al., 2020, Askell et al., 2021], and do not suffer significantly from forgetting [Ramasesh et al., 2022].”
From Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (2022) · cites this paper as Brown et al., 2020
The large-scale pretraining of LLMs equips them with vast knowledge across a wide range of domains.
“First, the large-scale pretraining of LLMs equips them with vast knowledge across a wide range of domains (Brown et al. 2020, Touvron et al. 2023).”
From AI Meets the Classroom: When Do Large Language Models Harm Learning? (2024) · cites this paper as Brown et al. 2020
The GPT architecture utilizes a neural network to process natural language, generating responses based on the context of input text.
“The GPT architecture utilizes a neural network to process natural language, thus generating responses based on the context of input text [7].”
From ChatGPT Utility in Healthcare Education, Research, and Practice: Systematic Review on the Promising Perspectives and Valid Concerns (2023) · cites this paper as [7]
In-context learning is a key mechanism for foundation model programming.
“In-context learning (McCann et al. 2018; Radford et al. 2018; Brown et al. 2020) is a key mechanism for foundation model programming.”
From DSPy: Compiling Declarative Language Model Calls into Self-Improving Pipelines (2023) · cites this paper as Brown et al. 2020
Chinchilla, a 70B-parameter model trained on 1.4 trillion tokens, outperformed Gopher, GPT-3, and others across a broad benchmark suite under a matched compute budget.
“Chinchilla outperformed the much larger Gopher [Rae et al., 2021], GPT-3 [Brown et al., 2020], and others [Smith et al., 2022] across a broad benchmark suite”
From Training Compute-Optimal Transformer Models: A Review of Scaling Laws, Allocation, and Practice (2026) · cites this paper as Brown et al., 2020
Few-shot demonstrations take advantage of the ability of strong language models to learn repetitive patterns.
“These few-shot demonstrations take advantage of the ability of strong language models to learn repetitive patterns [9].”
From Pre-train, Prompt, and Predict: A Systematic Survey of Prompting Methods in Natural Language Processing (2023) · cites this paper as [9]
Qwen3 models utilize Qwen's tokenizer, which implements byte-level byte-pair encoding (BBPE) with a vocabulary size of 151,669.
“Qwen3 models utilize Qwen's tokenizer (Bai et al., 2023), which implements byte-level byte-pair encoding (BBPE, Brown et al., 2020;Wang et al., 2020;Sennrich et al., 2016) with a vocabulary size of 151,669.”
From Qwen3 Technical Report (2025) · cites this paper as Brown et al., 2020
LLMs have shown promising performances in various classification tasks.
“LLMs have shown promising performances in various classification tasks (Brown et al., 2020), and prior work (Don-Yehiya et al., 2024; Shaikh et al., 2025) has also explored prompting LLMs (specifically GPT-4o-mini) to classify user feedback in multi-turn user-LLM interactions.”
From User Feedback in Human-LLM Dialogues: A Lens to Understand Users But Noisy as a Learning Signal (2025) · cites this paper as Brown et al., 2020
In-context learning allows the model to learn from input examples, enabling it to understand and manage each new task.
“In-context learning (Brown et al., 2020) allows the model to learn from input examples, enabling it to understand and manage each new task.”
From CodeTransOcean: A Comprehensive Multilingual Benchmark for Code Translation (2023) · cites this paper as Brown et al., 2020
Increasing the number of parameters improved model performance.
“We note that increasing the number of parameters improved model performance, consistent with recent advances in NLP7.”
From Effective gene expression prediction from sequence by integrating long-range interactions (2021) · cites this paper as [7]
Transformers are a class of deep learning models that have achieved substantial breakthroughs in natural language processing and were also recently applied to model short DNA sequences.
“Transformers are a class of deep learning models that have achieved substantial breakthroughs in natural language processing (NLP)6,7 and were also recently applied to model short DNA sequences8.”
From Effective gene expression prediction from sequence by integrating long-range interactions (2021) · cites this paper as [7]
Prompt tuning, which learns soft prompts through backpropagation to condition a frozen language model, outperforms GPT-3's few-shot learning by a large margin.
“Our end-to-end learned approach outperforms GPT-3's few-shot learning by a large margin.”
From The Power of Scale for Parameter-Efficient Prompt Tuning (2021) · cites this paper as Brown et al. (2020)
Many recently trained large models have been trained for approximately 300 billion tokens.
“Following Kaplan et al. (2020) and the training setup of GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020), many of the recently trained large models have been trained for approximately 300 billion tokens (Table 1), in line with the approach of predominantly increasing model size when increasing compute.”
From Training Compute-Optimal Large Language Models (2022) · cites this paper as Brown et al., 2020
Pre-training predominantly utilizes a transformer-based architecture following the paradigm established by GPT, and further developed by OPT, Falcon, and Llama-2.
“Pre-training constitutes the foundational stage for LLMs, predominantly utilizing a transformer-based architecture following the paradigm established by GPT [29, 251, 252], and further developed by OPT[372], Falcon [243], and Llama-2 [300].”
From A Survey on Hallucination in Large Language Models: Principles, Taxonomy, Challenges, and Open Questions (2025) · cites this paper as [29]
The hypothesis that episodic memories could lead to unpredictable and undesirable behavior has a strong parallel in existing work on the effects of examples given to large language models.
“Our hypothesis that episodic memories could be recalled and used in ways which lead to unpredictable and potentially undesirable agent behavior has a strong parallel in existing work on the effects of examples given to large language models.”
From Episodic Memory in AI Agents Poses Risks that Should be Studied and Mitigated (2025) · cites this paper as [97]
AI agents are able to both search the internet and learn new skills in this manner today.
“AI agents are able to both search the internet [119], [120] and learn new skills in this manner today [97], [121].”
From Episodic Memory in AI Agents Poses Risks that Should be Studied and Mitigated (2025) · cites this paper as [97]
LLMs generate outputs by predicting likely token sequences based on patterns learned from large-scale training data.
“At the core of these systems are large language models (LLMs), which generate outputs by predicting likely token sequences based on patterns learned from large-scale training data (Brown et al. 2020;Radford et al. 2018;Vaswani et al. 2017).”
From Machine marketing: rethinking the customer in the age of generative AI (2026) · cites this paper as Brown et al. 2020
The official estimate indicates that GPT-3 consumes an order of 0.4 kWh of electricity to generate 100 pages of content, equivalent to roughly 0.004 kWh per page.
“The official estimate indicates that GPT-3 consumes an order of 0.4kWh of electricity to generate 100 pages of content, equivalent to roughly 0.004kWh per page.4”
From Making AI Less 'Thirsty' (2025) · cites this paper as [4]
LLMs often need training to achieve the best results.
“While LLMs achieve high quality on many problems with simple prompt engineering (Brown et al., 2020), they often need training to achieve the best results.”
From Petals: Collaborative Inference and Fine-tuning of Large Models (2023) · cites this paper as Brown et al., 2020
Reaching a point in 3D space is feasible using motion planning because knowledge of a robot body is often known.
“Knowledge of a robot body is often known, hence reaching a point in the 3D space is feasible using motion planning [53, 59, 60].”
From Affordances from Human Videos as a Versatile Representation for Robotics (2023) · cites this paper as [60]
The Results overview (p. 10) describes language-model evaluations, and the discussion of physical reasoning in §3.5 (p. 17) concerns commonsense questions. Searches for robot-body knowledge, motion planning, and reaching a 3D target found no passage addressing the cited claim. (LLM, conf=0.77)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredGPT-3 is used for all properties (total of eight) for which the Hamming distance and false-positive rate for a sample compared to a human-annotated ground-truth are both less than 10%.
“GPT-3 is used for all properties (total of eight) for which the Hamming distance and false-positive rate for a sample compared to a human-annotated ground-truth are both less than 10%.”
From BEHAVIOR-1K: A Human-Centered, Embodied AI Benchmark with 1,000 Everyday Activities and Realistic Simulation (2024) · cites this paper as [58]
Our copy evaluates GPT-3 on tasks such as SuperGLUE (Section 3.7, p. 20), but those results do not address selecting eight properties for its use. Searches for Hamming distance, false-positive rate, human-annotated ground truth, and eight properties found no passage describing the claimed criteria. (LLM, conf=0.76)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredNLP modeling (including Transformer) does not require a deep structure.
“empirical observations indicate NLP modeling (including Transformer) does not require a deep structure (Vaswani et al., 2017; Brown et al., 2020)”
From Anti-Oversmoothing in Deep Vision Transformers via the Fourier Domain Analysis: From Theory to Practice (2022) · cites this paper as Brown et al., 2020
The Introduction (p. 3) says pretrained language models can remove the need for task-specific architectures, not that NLP models or Transformers do not require a deep structure. The Model and Architectures section (p. 8) describes Transformer layers and model scaling but does not test or make the claimed assertion about structural depth. I searched for discussion of shallow models and the number of layers without finding a passage that settles the claim. (LLM, conf=0.75)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredMoE-LLaVA uses a Mixture of Experts architecture that activates only relevant expert networks, reducing computational burden and improving reasoning efficiency on large datasets.
“MoE-LLaVA [208] uses a Mixture of Experts (MoE) architecture, activating only the relevant expert networks to reduce computational burden and improve reasoning efficiency, especially on large datasets.”
From Multimodal fusion and vision–language models: A survey for robot vision (2026) · cites this paper as [208]
The Introduction (pp. 3–4) discusses scaling transformer language models and in-context learning, not MoE-LLaVA. A mixture-of-experts paper appears in the References (p. 74), but our copy does not discuss MoE-LLaVA’s architecture, expert activation, computational burden, or reasoning efficiency (searched: MoE-LLaVA and mixture-of-experts efficiency). (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredAll HistoGPT models consistently produced text with high cosine similarity to the ground truth, according to the sentence embeddings provided by BioBERT and GPT-3-ADA.
“All HistoGPT models consistently produced text with high cosine similarity to the ground truth, according to the sentence embeddings provided by BioBERT33 and GPT-3-ADA25 (Fig. 3d).”
From Generating dermatopathology reports from gigapixel whole slide images with HistoGPT (2025) · cites this paper as [25]
Citation 25 is attached to GPT-3-ADA, apparently identifying the embedding model rather than sourcing the citing paper’s HistoGPT results. Our copy describes GPT-3 and its evaluations (3.7 SuperGLUE, pp. 18–20), but the passages found for searches on GPT-3 Ada, sentence embeddings, and cosine similarity do not establish that it describes GPT-3-ADA or its use for embeddings. (LLM, conf=0.74)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredCodex can be prompted to generate racist, denigratory, and otherwise harmful outputs as code comments, and can generate code with structure reflecting stereotypes.
“The developers of Codex note that it can be prompted in ways that 'generate racist, denigratory, and otherwise harmful outputs as code comments' [22], and that it can generate code with structure that reflects stereotypes about gender, race, emotion, class, the structure of names, and other characteristics [22].”
From “It’s Weird That it Knows What I Want”: Usability and Interactions with Copilot for Novice Programmers (2024) · cites this paper as [22]
Section 6.2 (pp. 36–39) discusses bias in GPT-3 text, including gender and racial stereotypes, but does not address Codex. Searches for Codex, harmful code comments, and stereotyped code structure found no passage supporting either specific claim. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThese components are fundamental for task decomposition, logical inference, action execution, and iterative improvement, following established patterns in agentic systems literature.
“These components are fundamental for task decomposition, logical inference, action execution, and iterative improvement, following established patterns in agentic systems literature.”
From Understanding and Optimizing Agentic Workflows via Shapley value (2025) · cites this paper as Brown et al. 2020
The Results section (p. 10) discusses reasoning and in-context adaptation tasks, but does not describe components of an agentic system or establish that they are fundamental to task decomposition, action execution, and iterative improvement. Searches for “task decomposition” and “agentic systems action execution iterative improvement” found no passage addressing that claim. (LLM, conf=0.74)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredCodex is more powerful than CodeGPT because it is a large-scale pretrained model trained on all source codes in GitHub based on GPT-3.
“It worth noting that Codex is more powerful than CodeGPT since it is a large-scale pretrained model that is trained on all source codes in GitHub based on GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020).”
From ReACC: A Retrieval-Augmented Code Completion Framework (2022) · cites this paper as Brown et al., 2020
Section 2.1 (p. 8) describes GPT-3 as a large model, but does not identify Codex as a GPT-3-based model. Searches for Codex, CodeGPT, and GitHub source-code training found no passage addressing their comparison or Codex’s training data. The claim therefore cannot be verified from this paper. (LLM, conf=0.76)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredVirtually all existing architectures for dense prediction are based on convolutional networks.
“Virtually all existing architectures for dense prediction are based on convolutional networks [6,31,34,42,49,50,53].”
From Vision Transformers for Dense Prediction (2021) · cites this paper as [42]
Section 2.1 (p. 8) describes transformer language-model architectures, not architectures for dense prediction. Searches for dense prediction, convolutional networks, and pixel-wise segmentation found no passage addressing whether dense-prediction architectures are predominantly convolutional. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredMost prior large language models have been trained for a single epoch.
“however, most prior large language models have been trained for a single epoch (Komatsuzaki, 2019;Brown et al., 2020)”
From Scaling Data-Constrained Language Models (2023) · cites this paper as Brown et al., 2020
Section 2.2 (p. 8) describes how often Brown et al. sampled their own training datasets, and Appendix B (p. 43) describes their training procedure. Neither passage says whether most prior large language models were trained for a single epoch; searches for “single epoch” and equivalent descriptions found no such statement in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.73)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredUsing in-context learning, these methods generate reasonable plans in structured language, but require pre-defined action primitives to execute.
“Using in-context learning [42], these methods generate reasonable plans in structured language, but requires pre-defined action primitives to execute.”
From RoboPoint: A Vision-Language Model for Spatial Affordance Prediction for Robotics (2024) · cites this paper as [42]
Models seem to often be able to use novel words appropriately.
“Models also seem to (often) be able to use novel words appropriately [69, 73].”
From Dissociating language and thought in large language models (2024) · cites this paper as [69]
GPT-3 performs well on two-digit addition and subtraction but not on three-digit addition or two-digit multiplication.
“GPT-3 performs well on two-digit addition and subtraction but not on more complex tasks, such as three-digit addition or two-digit multiplication [69].”
From Dissociating language and thought in large language models (2024) · cites this paper as [69]
Large language models have demonstrated remarkable progress in understanding human expression, reasoning, few-shot learning, and incorporating extensive world knowledge.
“With the unprecedented scale of training and model parameters, the capability of large language models has been dramatically improved, leading to human-like performances in understanding, language synthesizing, common-sense reasoning, etc.”
From When large language models meet personalization: perspectives of challenges and opportunities (2024) · cites this paper as [3]
Language models are mostly built upon deep neural networks, with the majority based on transformers or close variations, and are pre-trained at scale with massive unlabeled corpus then fine-tuned with task-oriented data.
“Nowadays, language models are mostly built upon deep neural networks, where two features need to be emphasized. First of all, the majority of language models are based on transformers or their close variations [28, 29].”
From When large language models meet personalization: perspectives of challenges and opportunities (2024) · cites this paper as [3]
OpenAI has been expanding model parameters and training data while employing RLHF and Instruction Tuning to further fine-tune GPT-3, leading to emergent abilities of models like InstructGPT and ChatGPT.
“OpenAI has been expanding the model parameters and training data while employing techniques such as RLHF (Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback) and Instruction Tuning to further fine-tune GPT-3 [3]. This has led to the emergent abilities of models like InstructGPT [37] and subsequent models like ChatGPT”
From When large language models meet personalization: perspectives of challenges and opportunities (2024) · cites this paper as [3]
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
BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding
Devlin, J., Chang, M.-W., Lee, K., & Toutanova, K. (2019) · Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/n19-1423 · Cited by 48,293 · see citing works
Efficient Estimation of Word Representations in Vector Space
Mikolov, T., Chen, K., Corrado, G., & Dean, J. (2013) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1301.3781 · Cited by 26,568 · see citing works
RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approach
Liu, Y., Ott, M., Goyal, N., Du, J., Joshi, M., Chen, D., Levy, O., Lewis, M., Zettlemoyer, L., & Stoyanov, V. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1907.11692 · Cited by 16,515 · see citing works
Lewis, M., Liu, Y., Goyal, N., Ghazvininejad, M., Mohamed, A., Levy, O., Stoyanov, V., & Zettlemoyer, L. (2020) · Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.703 · Cited by 8,821 · see citing works
Caruana, R. (1997) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1023/a:1007379606734 · Cited by 6,636 · see citing works
DistilBERT, a distilled version of BERT: smaller, faster, cheaper and lighter
Sanh, V., Debut, L., Chaumond, J., & Wolf, T. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1910.01108 · Cited by 4,653 · see citing works
Domain randomization for transferring deep neural networks from simulation to the real world
Tobin, J., Fong, R., Ray, A., Schneider, J., Zaremba, W., & Abbeel, P. (2017) · 2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) · doi:10.1109/iros.2017.8202133 · Cited by 3,124 · see citing works
Natural Questions: A benchmark for question answering research
Kwiatkowski, T., Palomaki, J., Redfield, O., Collins, M., Parikh, A., Alberti, C., Epstein, D., Polosukhin, I., Devlin, J., Lee, K., et al. (2019) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00276 · Cited by 2,069 · see citing works
Scaling Laws for Neural Language Models
Kaplan, J., McCandlish, S., Henighan, T., Brown, T. B., Chess, B., Child, R., Gray, S., Radford, A., Wu, J., & Amodei, D. (2020) · arXiv · Cited by 1,749 · see citing works
Self-citationTriviaQA: A Large Scale Distantly Supervised Challenge Dataset for Reading Comprehension
Joshi, M., Choi, E., Weld, D., & Zettlemoyer, L. (2017) · Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/p17-1147 · Cited by 1,690 · see citing works
Exploiting Cloze-Questions for Few-Shot Text Classification and Natural Language Inference
Schick, T., & Schütze, H. (2021) · Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.eacl-main.20 · Cited by 1,305 · see citing works
The Curious Case of Neural Text Degeneration
Holtzman, A., Buys, J., Du, L., Forbes, M., & Choi, Y. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1904.09751 · Cited by 1,304 · see citing works
Language (Technology) is Power: A Critical Survey of “Bias” in NLP
Blodgett, S. L., Barocas, S., Daumé III, H., & Wallach, H. (2020) · Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.485 · Cited by 1,050 · see citing works
RACE: Large-scale ReAding Comprehension Dataset From Examinations
Lai, G., Xie, Q., Liu, H., Yang, Y., & Hovy, E. (2017) · Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/d17-1082 · Cited by 1,044 · see citing works
Sequence-Level Knowledge Distillation
Kim, Y., & Rush, A. M. (2016) · Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/d16-1139 · Cited by 836 · see citing works
QuAC: Question Answering in Context
Choi, E., He, H., Iyyer, M., Yatskar, M., Yih, W.-T., Choi, Y., Liang, P., & Zettlemoyer, L. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/d18-1241 · Cited by 714 · see citing works
StereoSet: Measuring stereotypical bias in pretrained language models
Nadeem, M., Bethke, A., & Reddy, S. (2021) · Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.416 · Cited by 643 · see citing works
UNIFIEDQA: Crossing Format Boundaries with a Single QA System
Khashabi, D., Min, S., Khot, T., Sabharwal, A., Tafjord, O., Clark, P., & Hajishirzi, H. (2020) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020 · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.findings-emnlp.171 · Cited by 514 · see citing works
GLTR: Statistical Detection and Visualization of Generated Text
Gehrmann, S., Strobelt, H., & Rush, A. (2019) · Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations · doi:10.18653/v1/p19-3019 · Cited by 470 · see citing works
Dissecting Contextual Word Embeddings: Architecture and Representation
Peters, M., Neumann, M., Zettlemoyer, L., & Yih, W.-T. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/d18-1179 · Cited by 434 · see citing works
The Woman Worked as a Babysitter: On Biases in Language Generation
Sheng, E., Chang, K.-W., Natarajan, P., & Peng, N. (2019) · Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/d19-1339 · Cited by 431 · see citing works
Fine-Tuning Language Models from Human Preferences
Ziegler, D. M., Stiennon, N., Wu, J., Brown, T. B., Radford, A., Amodei, D., Christiano, P., & Irving, G. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1909.08593 · Cited by 413 · see citing works
Self-citationAdaptive Computation Time for Recurrent Neural Networks
Graves, A. (2016) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1603.08983 · Cited by 335 · see citing works
Automatic Detection of Generated Text is Easiest when Humans are Fooled
Ippolito, D., Duckworth, D., Callison-Burch, C., & Eck, D. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1911.00650 · Cited by 264
Automatic Detection of Generated Text is Easiest when Humans are Fooled
Ippolito, D., Duckworth, D., Callison-Burch, C., & Eck, D. (2020) · Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.164 · Cited by 264 · see citing works
How Can We Accelerate Progress Towards Human-like Linguistic Generalization?
Linzen, T. (2020) · Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.465 · Cited by 148 · see citing works
NumNet: Machine Reading Comprehension with Numerical Reasoning
Ran, Q., Lin, Y., Li, P., Zhou, J., & Liu, Z. (2019) · Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/d19-1251 · Cited by 108 · see citing works
The LAMBADA dataset: Word prediction requiring a broad discourse context
Paperno, D., Kruszewski, G., Lazaridou, A., Pham, N. Q., Bernardi, R., Pezzelle, S., Baroni, M., Boleda, G., & Fernandez, R. (2016) · Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/p16-1144 · Cited by 87 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scale
Dosovitskiy, A., Beyer, L., Kolesnikov, A., Weissenborn, D., Zhai, X., Unterthiner, T., Dehghani, M., Minderer, M., Heigold, G., Gelly, S., et al. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2010.11929 · Cited by 21,793 · see citing works
“…models are often pre-trained on large corpora and then fine-tuned for the task at hand: BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) uses a denoising self-supervised pre-training task, while the GPT line of work uses language modeling as its pre-training task (Radford et al., 2018; 2019; Brown et al., 2020).”
Kirillov, A., Mintun, E., Ravi, N., Mao, H., Rolland, C., Gustafson, L., Xiao, T., Whitehead, S., Berg, A. C., Lo, W.-Y., et al. (2023) · 2023 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) · doi:10.1109/iccv51070.2023.00371 · Cited by 11,953 · see citing works
Masked Autoencoders Are Scalable Vision Learners
He, K., Chen, X., Xie, S., Li, Y., Dollar, P., & Girshick, R. (2022) · 2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr52688.2022.01553 · Cited by 8,489 · see citing works
“, [40, 14, 41, 4]) enable benefits from exponentially scaling models.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education
Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., et al. (2023) · Learning and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274 · Cited by 7,326 · see citing works
Evolutionary-scale prediction of atomic level protein structure with a language model
Lin, Z., Akin, H., Rao, R., Hie, B., Zhu, Z., Lu, W., Smetanin, N., Verkuil, R., Kabeli, O., Shmueli, Y., et al. (2022) · doi:10.1101/2022.07.20.500902 · Cited by 5,523 · see citing works
Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generation
Ji, Z., Lee, N., Frieske, R., Yu, T., Su, D., Xu, Y., Ishii, E., Bang, Y. J., Madotto, A., & Fung, P. (2023) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3571730 · Cited by 5,025 · see citing works
Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback
Ouyang, L., Wu, J., Jiang, X., Almeida, D., Wainwright, C. L., Mishkin, P., Zhang, C., Agarwal, S., Slama, K., Ray, A., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2203.02155 · Cited by 4,208 · see citing works
Self-citationLiu, P., Yuan, W., Fu, J., Jiang, Z., Hayashi, H., & Neubig, G. (2023) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3560815 · Cited by 4,361 · see citing works
Diffusion Models Beat GANs on Image Synthesis
Dhariwal, P., & Nichol, A. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2105.05233 · Cited by 3,362 · see citing works
Self-citationLearning to Prompt for Vision-Language Models
Zhou, K., Yang, J., Loy, C. C., & Liu, Z. (2022) · International Journal of Computer Vision · doi:10.1007/s11263-022-01653-1 · Cited by 3,304 · see citing works
“There are some differences that distinguish our approach from the prompt learning methods developed in NLP for language models (e.g., GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020)).”
BackgroundChatting and Cheating. Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT
Cotton, D., Cotton, P., & Shipway, J. R. (2023) · doi:10.35542/osf.io/mrz8h · Cited by 3,079 · see citing works
Sallam, M. (2023) · Healthcare · doi:10.3390/healthcare11060887 · Cited by 3,126 · see citing works
The Power of Scale for Parameter-Efficient Prompt Tuning
Lester, B., Al-Rfou, R., & Constant, N. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.243 · Cited by 3,096 · see citing works
HuBERT: Self-Supervised Speech Representation Learning by Masked Prediction of Hidden Units
Hsu, W.-N., Bolte, B., Tsai, Y.-H. H., Lakhotia, K., Salakhutdinov, R., & Mohamed, A. (2021) · IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing · doi:10.1109/taslp.2021.3122291 · Cited by 2,983 · see citing works
Swin Transformer V2: Scaling Up Capacity and Resolution
Liu, Z., Hu, H., Lin, Y., Yao, Z., Xie, Z., Wei, Y., Ning, J., Cao, Y., Zhang, Z., Dong, L., et al. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2111.09883 · Cited by 2,679 · see citing works
On the Opportunities and Risks of Foundation Models
Bommasani, R., Hudson, D. A., Adeli, E., Altman, R., Arora, S., von Arx, S., Bernstein, M. S., Bohg, J., Bosselut, A., Brunskill, E., et al. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2108.07258 · Cited by 2,676 · see citing works
Self-citationPaLM: Scaling Language Modeling with Pathways
Chowdhery, A., Narang, S., Devlin, J., Bosma, M., Mishra, G., Roberts, A., Barham, P., Chung, H. W., Sutton, C., Gehrmann, S., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2204.02311 · Cited by 2,590 · see citing works
“GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020) demonstrated that extremely large autoregressive language models (LMs) can be used for few-shot predictions, where the model is only given a natural language task description and (optionally) a handful of exemplars demonstrating how the task should be completed.”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialSelf-citationChatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT
Cotton, D. R. E., Cotton, P. A., & Shipway, J. R. (2024) · Innovations in Education and Teaching International · doi:10.1080/14703297.2023.2190148 · Cited by 3,087 · see citing works
LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Models
Hu, E. J., Shen, Y., Wallis, P., Allen-Zhu, Z., Li, Y., Wang, S., Wang, L., & Chen, W. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2106.09685 · Cited by 2,523 · see citing works
Attention mechanisms in computer vision: A survey
Guo, M.-H., Xu, T.-X., Liu, J.-J., Liu, Z.-N., Jiang, P.-T., Mu, T.-J., Zhang, S.-H., Martin, R. R., Cheng, M.-M., & Hu, S.-M. (2022) · Computational Visual Media · doi:10.1007/s41095-022-0271-y · Cited by 2,566 · see citing works
“Large-scale attention-based pre-trained models have had great success in natural language processing [85], [179].”
BackgroundRay, P. P. (2023) · Internet of Things and Cyber-Physical Systems · doi:10.1016/j.iotcps.2023.04.003 · Cited by 2,463 · see citing works
Prefix-Tuning: Optimizing Continuous Prompts for Generation
Li, X. L., & Liang, P. (2021) · Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.353 · Cited by 2,473 · see citing works
Vision Transformers for Dense Prediction
Ranftl, R., Bochkovskiy, A., & Koltun, V. (2021) · 2021 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) · doi:10.1109/iccv48922.2021.01196 · Cited by 2,373 · see citing works
Chain-Of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models
Wei, J., Wang, X., Schuurmans, D., Bosma, M., Ichter, B., Xia, F., Chi, E., Le, Q. V., & Zhou, D. (2022) · Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 · doi:10.52202/068431-1800 · Cited by 4,505 · see citing works
ProtTrans: Toward Understanding the Language of Life Through Self-Supervised Learning
Elnaggar, A., Heinzinger, M., Dallago, C., Rehawi, G., Wang, Y., Jones, L., Gibbs, T., Feher, T., Angerer, C., Steinegger, M., et al. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tpami.2021.3095381 · Cited by 2,329 · see citing works
Scalable Diffusion Models with Transformers
Peebles, W., & Xie, S. (2023) · 2023 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) · doi:10.1109/iccv51070.2023.00387 · Cited by 2,284 · see citing works
Hierarchical Text-Conditional Image Generation with CLIP Latents
Ramesh, A., Dhariwal, P., Nichol, A., Chu, C., & Chen, M. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2204.06125 · Cited by 2,511 · see citing works
“To this end, we generated 512 “artistic” captions using GPT-3 [4] by prompting it with captions for existing artwork (both real and AI generated).”
MethodSelf-citationGilson, A., Safranek, C. W., Huang, T., Socrates, V., Chi, L., Taylor, R. A., & Chartash, D. (2023) · JMIR Medical Education · doi:10.2196/45312 · Cited by 2,078 · see citing works
Huang, L., Yu, W., Ma, W., Zhong, W., Feng, Z., Wang, H., Chen, Q., Peng, W., Feng, X., Qin, B., et al. (2025) · ACM Transactions on Information Systems · doi:10.1145/3703155 · Cited by 2,142 · see citing works
Pre-Trained Image Processing Transformer
Chen, H., Wang, Y., Guo, T., Xu, C., Deng, Y., Liu, Z., Ma, S., Xu, C., Xu, C., & Gao, W. (2021) · 2021 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr46437.2021.01212 · Cited by 2,308 · see citing works
Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behavior
Park, J. S., O'Brien, J., Cai, C. J., Morris, M. R., Liang, P., & Bernstein, M. S. (2023) · Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology · doi:10.1145/3586183.3606763 · Cited by 2,187 · see citing works
BAİDOO-ANU, D., & OWUSU ANSAH, L. (2023) · Journal of AI · doi:10.61969/jai.1337500 · Cited by 1,826 · see citing works
Scientific discovery in the age of artificial intelligence.
Wang, H., Fu, T., Du, Y., Gao, W., Huang, K., Liu, Z., Chandak, P., Liu, S., Van Katwyk, P., Deac, A., et al. (2023) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06221-2 · Cited by 1,823 · see citing works
ChatGPT: Bullshit spewer or the end of traditional assessments in higher education?
(2023) · Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching · doi:10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.9 · Cited by 1,806 · see citing works
Toward expert-level medical question answering with large language models
Singhal, K., Tu, T., Gottweis, J., Sayres, R., Wulczyn, E., Amin, M., Hou, L., Clark, K., Pfohl, S. R., Cole-Lewis, H., et al. (2025) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-024-03423-7 · Cited by 1,734 · see citing works
A survey on large language model based autonomous agents
Wang, L., Ma, C., Feng, X., Zhang, Z., Yang, H., Zhang, J., Chen, Z., Tang, J., Chen, X., Lin, Y., et al. (2024) · Frontiers of Computer Science · doi:10.1007/s11704-024-40231-1 · Cited by 1,941 · see citing works
Is Space-Time Attention All You Need for Video Understanding?
Bertasius, G., Wang, H., & Torresani, L. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2102.05095 · Cited by 1,663 · see citing works
Accurate medium-range global weather forecasting with 3D neural networks
Bi, K., Xie, L., Zhang, H., Chen, X., Gu, X., & Tian, Q. (2023) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06185-3 · Cited by 1,670 · see citing works
Efficient Memory Management for Large Language Model Serving with PagedAttention
Kwon, W., Li, Z., Zhuang, S., Sheng, Y., Zheng, L., Yu, C. H., Gonzalez, J., Zhang, H., & Stoica, I. (2023) · Proceedings of the 29th Symposium on Operating Systems Principles · doi:10.1145/3600006.3613165 · Cited by 1,817 · see citing works
A primer in BERTology: What we know about how BERT works
Rogers, A., Kovaleva, O., & Rumshisky, A. (2020) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00349 · Cited by 1,552 · see citing works
Towards a general-purpose foundation model for computational pathology
Chen, R. J., Ding, T., Lu, M. Y., Williamson, D. F. K., Jaume, G., Song, A. H., Chen, B., Zhang, A., Shao, D., Shaban, M., et al. (2024) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-024-02857-3 · Cited by 1,560 · see citing works
Feuerriegel, S., Hartmann, J., Janiesch, C., & Zschech, P. (2024) · Business & Information Systems Engineering · doi:10.1007/s12599-023-00834-7 · Cited by 1,409 · see citing works
Multiscale vision transformers
Fan, H., Xiong, B., Mangalam, K., Li, Y., Yan, Z., Malik, J., & Feichtenhofer, C. (2021) · 2021 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) · doi:10.1109/iccv48922.2021.00675 · Cited by 1,407 · see citing works
Han, K., Xiao, A., Wu, E., Guo, J., Xu, C., & Wang, Y. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2103.00112 · Cited by 1,394 · see citing works
“, the famous BERT [8] and GPT-3 [2] models.”
MethodscGPT: Towards Building a Foundation Model for Single-Cell Multi-omics Using Generative AI
Cui, H., Wang, C., Maan, H., Pang, K., Luo, F., & Wang, B. (2023) · doi:10.1101/2023.04.30.538439 · Cited by 1,383 · see citing works
“The generative pre-training used in OpenAI GPT3 [71] and GPT4 [19] employs a unified 585”
MethodUnifying Large Language Models and Knowledge Graphs: A Roadmap
Pan, S., Luo, L., Wang, Y., Chen, C., Wang, J., & Wu, X. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/tkde.2024.3352100 · Cited by 1,376 · see citing works
Effective gene expression prediction from sequence by integrating long-range interactions
Avsec, Ž., Agarwal, V., Visentin, D., Ledsam, J. R., Grabska-Barwinska, A., Taylor, K. R., Assael, Y., Jumper, J., Kohli, P., & Kelley, D. R. (2021) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/s41592-021-01252-x · Cited by 1,326 · see citing works
Making Pre-trained Language Models Better Few-shot Learners
Gao, T., Fisch, A., & Chen, D. (2021) · Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.295 · Cited by 1,380 · see citing works
Lin, T., Wang, Y., Liu, X., & Qiu, X. (2022) · AI Open · doi:10.1016/j.aiopen.2022.10.001 · Cited by 1,422 · see citing works
A Comprehensive Overview of Large Language Models
Naveed, H., Khan, A. U., Qiu, S., Saqib, M., Anwar, S., Usman, M., Akhtar, N., Barnes, N., & Mian, A. (2025) · ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology · doi:10.1145/3744746 · Cited by 1,257 · see citing works
Self-Instruct: Aligning Language Models with Self-Generated Instructions
Wang, Y., Kordi, Y., Mishra, S., Liu, A., Smith, N. A., Khashabi, D., & Hajishirzi, H. (2023) · Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.754 · Cited by 1,243 · see citing works
AutoPrompt: Eliciting Knowledge from Language Models with Automatically Generated Prompts
Shin, T., Razeghi, Y., Logan IV, R. L., Wallace, E., & Singh, S. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.346 · Cited by 1,279 · see citing works
Baidoo-Anu, D., & Owusu Ansah, L. (2023) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4337484 · Cited by 3,004 · see citing works
“A more sophisticated Generative Pre-trained Transformer (GPT) -3 has recently been developed (Brown, et al., 2020).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialTree of Thoughts: Deliberate Problem Solving with Large Language Models
Yao, S., Yu, D., Zhao, J., Shafran, I., Griffiths, T. L., Cao, Y., & Narasimhan, K. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.10601 · Cited by 1,158 · see citing works
A Survey of Quantization Methods for Efficient Neural Network Inference
Gholami, A., Kim, S., Dong, Z., Yao, Z., Mahoney, M. W., & Keutzer, K. (2022) · Low-Power Computer Vision · doi:10.1201/9781003162810-13 · Cited by 1,219 · see citing works
“Considering the prohibitive model size and inference latency of state-of-the-art NLP models (e.g., BERT [46], RoBERTa [159], and the GPT family [17, 194, 195]) that are pre-trained on a large amount of unlabeled data, extreme quantization is emerging as a powerful tool for bringing NLP inference…”
InternImage: Exploring Large-Scale Vision Foundation Models with Deformable Convolutions
Wang, W., Dai, J., Chen, Z., Huang, Z., Li, Z., Zhu, X., Hu, X., Lu, T., Lu, L., Li, H., et al. (2023) · 2023 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr52729.2023.01385 · Cited by 1,080 · see citing works
DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision
Oquab, M., Darcet, T., Moutakanni, T., Vo, H., Szafraniec, M., Khalidov, V., Fernandez, P., Haziza, D., Massa, F., El-Nouby, A., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2304.07193 · Cited by 1,078 · see citing works
ChatGPT for Education and Research: Opportunities, Threats, and Strategies
Rahman, M. M., & Watanobe, Y. (2023) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app13095783 · Cited by 1,080 · see citing works
“Generative pretrained transformer (GPT)-3 is a large language model (LLM) based on the Transformer architecture [5,6] that has achieved significant success in NLP tasks.”
BackgroundEfficient transformers: A survey
Tay, Y., Dehghani, M., Bahri, D., & Metzler, D. (2023) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3530811 · Cited by 1,267 · see citing works
Vision-Language Models for Vision Tasks: A Survey
Zhang, J., Huang, J., Jin, S., & Lu, S. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tpami.2024.3369699 · Cited by 1,051 · see citing works
Grassini, S. (2023) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci13070692 · Cited by 1,048 · see citing works
Leveraging Passage Retrieval with Generative Models for Open Domain Question Answering
Izacard, G., & Grave, E. (2021) · Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.eacl-main.74 · Cited by 1,109 · see citing works
State of the art and practice in <scp>AI</scp> in education
Holmes, W., & Tuomi, I. (2022) · European Journal of Education · doi:10.1111/ejed.12533 · Cited by 1,093 · see citing works
A Comprehensive Survey of Continual Learning: Theory, Method and Application
Wang, L., Zhang, X., Su, H., & Zhu, J. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tpami.2024.3367329 · Cited by 1,113 · see citing works
“Foundation Model , such as GPT [316] and CLIP [218], demonstrates impressive performance in a variety of down-stream tasks with the use of large-scale pre-training.”
MethodBrynjolfsson, E., Li, D., & Raymond, L. (2023) · National Bureau of Economic Research · doi:10.3386/w31161 · Cited by 995 · see citing works
Practical and ethical challenges of large language models in education: A systematic scoping review
Yan, L., Sha, L., Zhao, L., Li, Y., Martinez‐Maldonado, R., Chen, G., Li, X., Jin, Y., & Gašević, D. (2024) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.13370 · Cited by 935 · see citing works
Detecting hallucinations in large language models using semantic entropy
Farquhar, S., Kossen, J., Kuhn, L., & Gal, Y. (2024) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07421-0 · Cited by 934 · see citing works
Brynjolfsson, E., Li, D., & Raymond, L. (2025) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1093/qje/qjae044 · Cited by 1,083 · see citing works
Why Johnny Can’t Prompt: How Non-AI Experts Try (and Fail) to Design LLM Prompts
Zamfirescu-Pereira, J. D., Wong, R. Y., Hartmann, B., & Yang, Q. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3544548.3581388 · Cited by 893 · see citing works
Adapted large language models can outperform medical experts in clinical text summarization
Van Veen, D., Van Uden, C., Blankemeier, L., Delbrouck, J.-B., Aali, A., Bluethgen, C., Pareek, A., Polacin, M., Reis, E. P., Seehofnerová, A., et al. (2024) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-024-02855-5 · Cited by 891 · see citing works
Prompt Programming for Large Language Models: Beyond the Few-Shot Paradigm
Reynolds, L., & McDonell, K. (2021) · Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3411763.3451760 · Cited by 952 · see citing works
“GPT-3 was trained in a self-supervised setting on hundreds of gigabytes of natural language [3].”
BackgroundResultInfluentialLund, B. D., Wang, T., Mannuru, N. R., Nie, B., Shimray, S., & Wang, Z. (2023) · Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.24750 · Cited by 919 · see citing works
Linformer: Self-Attention with Linear Complexity
Wang, S., Li, B. Z., Khabsa, M., Fang, H., & Ma, H. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2006.04768 · Cited by 867 · see citing works
Zhai, X., Kolesnikov, A., Houlsby, N., & Beyer, L. (2022) · 2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr52688.2022.01179 · Cited by 891 · see citing works
Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models
Wang, X., Wei, J., Schuurmans, D., Le, Q., Chi, E., Narang, S., Chowdhery, A., & Zhou, D. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2203.11171 · Cited by 829 · see citing works
“…have found that even when the desired answer is fixed, introducing diversity in the reasoning processes can be highly beneficial; therefore we leverage sampling, as commonly used for open-ended text generation (Radford et al., 2019; Brown et al., 2020; Thoppilan et al., 2022), to achieve this goal.”
BackgroundInfluentialFlamingo: a visual language model for few-shot learning
Alayrac, J.-B., Donahue, J., Luc, P., Miech, A., Barr, I., Hasson, Y., Lenc, K., Mensch, A., Millican, K., Reynolds, M., et al. (2022) · Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 · doi:10.52202/068431-1723 · Cited by 966 · see citing works
“We evaluate the ability of our models to rapidly adapt to new tasks using in-context learning , analogously to GPT-3 [11], by interleaving support example pairs in the form of ( 𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑔𝑒, 𝑡𝑒𝑥𝑡 ) or ( 𝑣𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑜, 𝑡𝑒𝑥𝑡 ) , followed by the query visual input, to build a prompt (details in Method FT Shot OKVQA ( I )”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialP-Tuning: Prompt Tuning Can Be Comparable to Fine-tuning Across Scales and Tasks
Liu, X., Ji, K., Fu, Y., Tam, W., Du, Z., Yang, Z., & Tang, J. (2022) · Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.acl-short.8 · Cited by 810 · see citing works
Evaluation and mitigation of the limitations of large language models in clinical decision-making
Hager, P., Jungmann, F., Holland, R., Bhagat, K., Hubrecht, I., Knauer, M., Vielhauer, J., Makowski, M., Braren, R., Kaissis, G., et al. (2024) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-024-03097-1 · Cited by 798 · see citing works
AI models collapse when trained on recursively generated data
Shumailov, I., Shumaylov, Z., Zhao, Y., Papernot, N., Anderson, R., & Gal, Y. (2024) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07566-y · Cited by 793 · see citing works
Summary of ChatGPT-Related research and perspective towards the future of large language models
Liu, Y., Han, T., Ma, S., Zhang, J., Yang, Y., Tian, J., He, H., Li, A., He, M., Liu, Z., et al. (2023) · Meta-Radiology · doi:10.1016/j.metrad.2023.100017 · Cited by 855 · see citing works
Code as Policies: Language Model Programs for Embodied Control
Liang, J., Huang, W., Xia, F., Xu, P., Hausman, K., Ichter, B., Florence, P., & Zeng, A. (2023) · 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) · doi:10.1109/icra48891.2023.10160591 · Cited by 767 · see citing works
Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback
Madaan, A., Tandon, N., Gupta, P., Hallinan, S., Gao, L., Wiegreffe, S., Alon, U., Dziri, N., Prabhumoye, S., Yang, Y., et al. (2023) · Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 · doi:10.52202/075280-2019 · Cited by 755 · see citing works
Rethinking the Role of Demonstrations: What Makes In-Context Learning Work?
Min, S., Lyu, X., Holtzman, A., Artetxe, M., Lewis, M., Hajishirzi, H., & Zettlemoyer, L. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2202.12837 · Cited by 752 · see citing works
Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey
Gao, Y., Xiong, Y., Gao, X., Jia, K., Pan, J., Bi, Y., Dai, Y., Sun, J., Wang, M., & Wang, H. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2312.10997 · Cited by 876 · see citing works
“Large language models (LLMs) such as the GPT series [Brown et al. , 2020, OpenAI, 2023] and the LLama series [Touvron et al. , 2023], along with other models like Gemini [Google, 2023], have achieved remarkable success in natural language processing, demonstrating supe-∗ rior performance on various…”
BackgroundTruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human Falsehoods
Lin, S., Hilton, J., & Evans, O. (2022) · Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.229 · Cited by 904 · see citing works
A Comprehensive Survey of Few-shot Learning: Evolution, Applications, Challenges, and Opportunities
Song, Y., Wang, T., Cai, P., Mondal, S. K., & Sahoo, J. P. (2023) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3582688 · Cited by 721 · see citing works
Taxonomy of Risks posed by Language Models
Weidinger, L., Uesato, J., Rauh, M., Griffin, C., Huang, P.-S., Mellor, J., Glaese, A., Cheng, M., Balle, B., Kasirzadeh, A., et al. (2022) · 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness Accountability and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3531146.3533088 · Cited by 764 · see citing works
“Current state of the art LMs are primarily trained in English or Mandarin Chinese [30, 37, 54, 148, 160] and perform better in these compared to any other languages [196].”
BackgroundInfluentialEnd-to-End Human Pose and Mesh Reconstruction with Transformers
Lin, K., Wang, L., & Liu, Z. (2021) · 2021 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr46437.2021.00199 · Cited by 740 · see citing works
It’s Not Just Size That Matters: Small Language Models Are Also Few-Shot Learners
Schick, T., & Schütze, H. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.naacl-main.185 · Cited by 747 · see citing works
Rethinking the Role of Demonstrations: What Makes In-Context Learning Work?
Min, S., Lyu, X., Holtzman, A., Artetxe, M., Lewis, M., Hajishirzi, H., & Zettlemoyer, L. (2022) · Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-main.759 · Cited by 755 · see citing works
Objaverse: A Universe of Annotated 3D Objects
Deitke, M., Schwenk, D., Salvador, J., Weihs, L., Michel, O., VanderBilt, E., Schmidt, L., Ehsanit, K., Kembhavi, A., & Farhadi, A. (2023) · 2023 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr52729.2023.01263 · Cited by 725 · see citing works
Language models enable zero-shot prediction of the effects of mutations on protein function
Meier, J., Rao, R., Verkuil, R., Liu, J., Sercu, T., & Rives, A. (2021) · doi:10.1101/2021.07.09.450648 · Cited by 635 · see citing works
ChatGPT and the rise of large language models: the new AI-driven infodemic threat in public health
De Angelis, L., Baglivo, F., Arzilli, G., Privitera, G. P., Ferragina, P., Tozzi, A. E., & Rizzo, C. (2023) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2023.1166120 · Cited by 708 · see citing works
Vector Quantized Diffusion Model for Text-to-Image Synthesis
Gu, S., Chen, D., Bao, J., Wen, F., Zhang, B., Chen, D., Yuan, L., & Guo, B. (2022) · 2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr52688.2022.01043 · Cited by 720 · see citing works
UniXcoder: Unified Cross-Modal Pre-training for Code Representation
Guo, D., Lu, S., Duan, N., Wang, Y., Zhou, M., & Yin, J. (2022) · Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.499 · Cited by 673 · see citing works
Reproducible Scaling Laws for Contrastive Language-Image Learning
Cherti, M., Beaumont, R., Wightman, R., Wortsman, M., Ilharco, G., Gordon, C., Schuhmann, C., Schmidt, L., & Jitsev, J. (2023) · 2023 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr52729.2023.00276 · Cited by 673 · see citing works
Chatbots in Education and Research: A Critical Examination of Ethical Implications and Solutions
Kooli, C. (2023) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su15075614 · Cited by 666 · see citing works
Bias and Fairness in Large Language Models: A Survey
Gallegos, I. O., Rossi, R. A., Barrow, J., Tanjim, M. M., Kim, S., Dernoncourt, F., Yu, T., Zhang, R., & Ahmed, N. K. (2024) · Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/coli_a_00524 · Cited by 665 · see citing works
RealToxicityPrompts: Evaluating Neural Toxic Degeneration in Language Models
Gehman, S., Gururangan, S., Sap, M., Choi, Y., & Smith, N. A. (2020) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020 · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.findings-emnlp.301 · Cited by 693 · see citing works
Nucleotide Transformer: building and evaluating robust foundation models for human genomics
Dalla-Torre, H., Gonzalez, L., Mendoza-Revilla, J., Lopez Carranza, N., Grzywaczewski, A. H., Oteri, F., Dallago, C., Trop, E., de Almeida, B. P., Sirelkhatim, H., et al. (2025) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/s41592-024-02523-z · Cited by 656 · see citing works
“LMs have been primarily developed within NLP to model spoken languages 1,2 .”
- 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)
- arXiv
- 2005.14165
- 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
- green
- arxiv.org
- 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