CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 163Topic ModelingDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot LearningNatural Language Processing Techniques

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Can language models learn from explanations in context?

Open access
Lampinen, Andrew K., Dasgupta, Ishita, Chan, Stephanie C. Y., Matthewson, Kory, Tessler, Michael Henry, Creswell, Antonia, McClelland, James L., Wang, Jane X., Hill, Felix·2022·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2204.02329arXiv 2204.02329
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Language Models (LMs) can perform new tasks by adapting to a few in-context examples. For humans, explanations that connect examples to task principles can improve learning. We therefore investigate whether explanations of few-shot examples can help LMs. We annotate questions from 40 challenging tasks with answer explanations, and various matched control explanations. We evaluate how different types of explanations, instructions, and controls affect zero- and few-shot performance. We analyze these results using statistical multilevel modeling techniques that account for the nested dependencies among conditions, tasks, prompts, and models. We find that explanations can improve performance -- even without tuning. Furthermore, explanations hand-tuned for performance on a small validation set offer substantially larger benefits, and building a prompt by selecting examples and explanations together substantially improves performance over selecting examples alone. Finally, even untuned explanations outperform carefully matched controls, suggesting that the benefits are due to the link between an example and its explanation, rather than lower-level features. However, only large models benefit. In summary, explanations can support the in-context learning of large LMs on challenging tasks.

Overview

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

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

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

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2204.02329

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

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

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

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

Claims other papers make about this one

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

  • A similar emergence in performance gain was observed when augmenting few-shot prompting with explanations that came after the final answer.

    “A similar emergence in performance gain was also observed when augmenting few-shot prompting with explanations that came after the final answer (Lampinen et al., 2022).”

    From Emergent Abilities of Large Language Models (2022) · cites this paper as Lampinen et al., 2022

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 61

  1. Woo-kyoung Ahn, William F Brewer, and Raymond J Mooney. 1992. Schema acquisition from a single ex- ample. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learn- ing, Memory, and Cognition, 18(2):391.
  2. Philip W Anderson. 1972. More is different: broken symmetry and the nature of the hierarchical structure of science. Science, 177(4047):393-396.
  3. Jacob Andreas, Dan Klein, and Sergey Levine. 2018. Learning with latent language. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chap- ter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Pa- pers), pages 2166-2179.
  4. R Harald Baayen, Douglas J Davidson, and Douglas M Bates. 2008. Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of memory and language, 59(4):390-412.
  5. Douglas Bates, Martin Mächler, Ben Bolker, and Steve Walker. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1):1- 48. · DOI · Paper page
  6. Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert- Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Chris Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 1877-1901.
  7. Oana-Maria Camburu, Tim Rocktäschel, Thomas Lukasiewicz, and Phil Blunsom. 2018. e-snli: Nat- ural language inference with natural language expla- nations. Advances in Neural Information Process- ing Systems, 31:9539-9549.
  8. Jörg Cassens, Lorenz Habenicht, Julian Blohm, Re- bekah Wegener, Joanna Korman, Sangeet Khemlani, Giorgio Gronchi, Ruth MJ Byrne, Greta Warren, Molly S Quinn, et al. 2021. Explanation in human thinking. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, volume 43.
  9. Susan Chinn. 2000. A simple method for converting an odds ratio to effect size for use in meta-analysis. Statistics in medicine, 19(22):3127-3131.
  10. Herbert H Clark. 1973. The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psycho- logical research. Journal of verbal learning and ver- bal behavior, 12(4):335-359.
  11. Marina Danilevsky, Kun Qian, Ranit Aharonov, Yannis Katsis, Ban Kawas, and Prithviraj Sen. 2020. A sur- vey of the state of explainable ai for natural language processing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.00711. · arXiv
  12. Deep Ganguli, Danny Hernandez, Liane Lovitt, Nova DasSarma, Tom Henighan, Andy Jones, Nicholas Joseph, Jackson Kernion, Ben Mann, Amanda Askell, et al. 2022. Predictability and sur- prise in large generative models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.07785. · arXiv
  13. Andrew Gelman and Jennifer Hill. 2006. Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. Cambridge university press.
  14. Ariel Goldstein, Zaid Zada, Eliav Buchnik, Mariano Schain, Amy Price, Bobbi Aubrey, Samuel A Nas- tase, Amir Feder, Dotan Emanuel, Alon Cohen, et al. 2022. Shared computational principles for language processing in humans and deep language models. Nature Neuroscience, 25(3):369-380.
  15. Mark Harrower and Cynthia A Brewer. 2003. Col- orbrewer. org: an online tool for selecting colour schemes for maps. The Cartographic Journal, 40(1):27-37.
  16. Peter Hase and Mohit Bansal. 2021. When can mod- els learn from explanations? a formal framework for understanding the roles of explanation data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.02201. · arXiv
  17. Lisa Anne Hendricks, Zeynep Akata, Marcus Rohrbach, Jeff Donahue, Bernt Schiele, and Trevor Darrell. 2016. Generating visual explanations. In European conference on computer vision, pages 3- 19. Springer.
  18. Jordan Hoffmann, Sebastian Borgeaud, Arthur Mensch, Elena Buchatskaya, Trevor Cai, Eliza Rutherford, Diego de Las Casas, Lisa Anne Hendricks, Johannes Welbl, Aidan Clark, Tom Hennigan, Eric Noland, Katie Millican, George van den Driessche, Bogdan Damoc, Aurelia Guy, Simon Osindero, Karen Si- monyan, Erich Elsen, Jack W. Rae, Oriol Vinyals, and Laurent Sifre. 2022. Training compute-optimal large language models. · DOI · Paper page
  19. Ari Holtzman, Peter West, Vered Shwartz, Yejin Choi, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2021. Surface form compe- tition: Why the highest probability answer isn't al- ways right. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.08315. · arXiv
  20. Taku Kudo and John Richardson. 2018. Sentence- piece: A simple and language independent subword tokenizer and detokenizer for neural text processing. arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.06226. · arXiv
  21. Andrew K Lampinen, Nicholas A Roy, Ishita Dasgupta, Stephanie CY Chan, Allison C Tam, James L Mc- Clelland, Chen Yan, Adam Santoro, Neil C Rabi- nowitz, Jane X Wang, et al. 2021. Tell me why!- explanations support learning of relational and causal structure. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.03753. · arXiv
  22. Teven Le Scao and Alexander M Rush. 2021. How many data points is a prompt worth? In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chap- ter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 2627-2636.
  23. Piyawat Lertvittayakumjorn and Francesca Toni. 2021. Explanation-based human debugging of nlp models: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.15135. · arXiv
  24. Wang Ling, Dani Yogatama, Chris Dyer, and Phil Blun- som. 2017. Program induction by rationale genera- tion: Learning to solve and explain algebraic word problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.04146. · arXiv
  25. Pengfei Liu, Weizhe Yuan, Jinlan Fu, Zhengbao Jiang, Hiroaki Hayashi, and Graham Neubig. 2021. Pre- train, prompt, and predict: A systematic survey of prompting methods in natural language processing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.13586. · arXiv
  26. Tania Lombrozo. 2006. The structure and func- tion of explanations. Trends in cognitive sciences, 10(10):464-470.
  27. Tania Lombrozo and Susan Carey. 2006. Functional explanation and the function of explanation. Cogni- tion, 99(2):167-204.
  28. Bodhisattwa Prasad Majumder, Oana-Maria Cam- buru, Thomas Lukasiewicz, and Julian McAuley. 2021. Rationale-inspired natural language ex- planations with commonsense. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.13876. · arXiv
  29. Ana Marasović, Iz Beltagy, Doug Downey, and Matthew E Peters. 2021. Few-shot self- rationalization with natural language prompts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.08284. · arXiv
  30. James L McClelland, Felix Hill, Maja Rudolph, Ja- son Baldridge, and Hinrich Schütze. 2020. Plac- ing language in an integrated understanding system: Next steps toward human-level performance in neu- ral language models. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(42):25966-25974.
  31. Swaroop Mishra, Daniel Khashabi, Chitta Baral, Yejin Choi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2021a. Refram- ing instructional prompts to gptk's language. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.07830. · arXiv
  32. Swaroop Mishra, Daniel Khashabi, Chitta Baral, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2021b. Cross-task generaliza- tion via natural language crowdsourcing instructions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.08773. · arXiv
  33. Melanie Mitchell. 2021. Why ai is harder than we think. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.12871. · arXiv
  34. Jesse Mu, Percy Liang, and Noah Goodman. 2020. Shaping visual representations with language for few-shot classification. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computa- tional Linguistics, pages 4823-4830, Online. Asso- ciation for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  35. Sharan Narang, Colin Raffel, Katherine Lee, Adam Roberts, Noah Fiedel, and Karishma Malkan. 2020. Wt5?! training text-to-text models to explain their predictions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.14546. · arXiv
  36. Maxwell Nye, Anders Johan Andreassen, Guy Gur-Ari, Henryk Michalewski, Jacob Austin, David Bieber, David Dohan, Aitor Lewkowycz, Maarten Bosma, David Luan, et al. 2021. Show your work: Scratch- pads for intermediate computation with language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.00114. · arXiv
  37. Joe O'Connor and Jacob Andreas. 2021. What con- text features can transformer language models use? arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.08367. · arXiv
  38. Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Car- roll L Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, et al. 2022. Training language models to follow instruc- tions with human feedback. Preprint.
  39. Isabel Papadimitriou, Richard Futrell, and Kyle Ma- howald. 2022. When classifying arguments, bert doesn't care about word order... except when it mat- ters. Proceedings of the Society for Computation in Linguistics, 5(1):203-205.
  40. Ethan Perez, Douwe Kiela, and Kyunghyun Cho. 2021. True few-shot learning with language models. Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34.
  41. Thang M Pham, Trung Bui, Long Mai, and Anh Nguyen. 2020. Out of order: How important is the sequential order of words in a sentence in nat- ural language understanding tasks? arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.15180. · arXiv
  42. Ofir Press, Noah A Smith, and Mike Lewis. 2021. Train short, test long: Attention with linear biases enables input length extrapolation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.12409. · arXiv
  43. Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, Ilya Sutskever, et al. 2019. Lan- guage models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog, 1(8):9.
  44. Jack W Rae, Sebastian Borgeaud, Trevor Cai, Katie Millican, Jordan Hoffmann, Francis Song, John Aslanides, Sarah Henderson, Roman Ring, Susan- nah Young, et al. 2021. Scaling language models: Methods, analysis & insights from training gopher. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.11446. · arXiv
  45. Jack W Rae, Anna Potapenko, Siddhant M Jayakumar, and Timothy P Lillicrap. 2019. Compressive trans- formers for long-range sequence modelling. arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.05507. · arXiv
  46. Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J Liu. 2020. Exploring the lim- its of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 21:1-67.
  47. Nazneen Fatema Rajani, Bryan McCann, Caiming Xiong, and Richard Socher. 2019. Explain yourself! leveraging language models for commonsense rea- soning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.02361. · arXiv
  48. Gabriel Recchia. 2021. Teaching autoregressive lan- guage models complex tasks by demonstration. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.02102. · arXiv
  49. Laria Reynolds and Kyle McDonell. 2021. Prompt pro- gramming for large language models: Beyond the few-shot paradigm. In Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Comput- ing Systems, pages 1-7.
  50. Victor Sanh, Albert Webson, Colin Raffel, Stephen H Bach, Lintang Sutawika, Zaid Alyafeai, Antoine Chaffin, Arnaud Stiegler, Teven Le Scao, Arun Raja, et al. 2021. Multitask prompted training en- ables zero-shot task generalization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.08207. · arXiv
  51. Adam Santoro, Andrew Lampinen, Kory Mathewson, Timothy Lillicrap, and David Raposo. 2021. Sym- bolic behaviour in artificial intelligence. arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.03406. · arXiv
  52. Patrick Schramowski, Wolfgang Stammer, Stefano Teso, Anna Brugger, Franziska Herbert, Xiaoting Shao, Hans-Georg Luigs, Anne-Katrin Mahlein, and Kristian Kersting. 2020. Making deep neural net- works right for the right scientific reasons by inter- acting with their explanations. Nature Machine In- telligence, 2(8):476-486.
  53. Vered Shwartz, Peter West, Ronan Le Bras, Chandra Bhagavatula, and Yejin Choi. 2020. Unsupervised commonsense question answering with self-talk. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 4615-4629.
  54. Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In Advances in neural information pro- cessing systems, pages 5998-6008.
  55. Albert Webson and Ellie Pavlick. 2021. Do prompt- based models really understand the meaning of their prompts? arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.01247. · arXiv
  56. Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Ed Chi, Quoc Le, and Denny Zhou. 2022. Chain of thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.11903. · arXiv
  57. Hadley Wickham, Mara Averick, Jennifer Bryan, Win- ston Chang, Lucy D'Agostino McGowan, Romain François, Garrett Grolemund, Alex Hayes, Lionel Henry, Jim Hester, Max Kuhn, Thomas Lin Ped- ersen, Evan Miller, Stephan Milton Bache, Kirill Müller, Jeroen Ooms, David Robinson, Dana Paige Seidel, Vitalie Spinu, Kohske Takahashi, Davis Vaughan, Claus Wilke, Kara Woo, and Hiroaki Yu- tani. 2019. Welcome to the tidyverse. Journal of Open Source Software, 4(43):1686. · DOI · Paper page
  58. Sarah Wiegreffe, Jack Hessel, Swabha Swayamdipta, Mark Riedl, and Yejin Choi. 2021. Reframing human-AI collaboration for generating free-text ex- planations. In NAACL.
  59. Sang Michael Xie, Aditi Raghunathan, Percy Liang, and Tengyu Ma. 2021. An explanation of in-context learning as implicit bayesian inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.02080. · arXiv
  60. Eric Zelikman, Yuhuai Wu, and Noah D. Goodman. 2022. STaR: Bootstrapping reasoning with reason- ing. · DOI · Paper page
  61. Wangchunshu Zhou, Jinyi Hu, Hanlin Zhang, Xiao- dan Liang, Maosong Sun, Chenyan Xiong, and Jian Tang. 2020. Towards interpretable natural language understanding with explanations as latent variables. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:6803-6814.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Lampinen, A. K., Dasgupta, I., Chan, S. C. Y., Matthewson, K., Tessler, M. H., Creswell, A., McClelland, J. L., Wang, J. X., & Hill, F.
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2022
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2204.02329
arXiv
2204.02329
OpenAlex
W4226024653
Cited by
163
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 43 · 2023: 51 · 2022: 28
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
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
language models, in-context learning, few-shot learning, zero-shot learning, answer explanations, large language models, multilevel modeling, transfer learning

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