The DOI matches its DataCite record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Theory of Emergent In-Context Learning as Implicit Structure Induction
Abstract
Scaling large language models (LLMs) leads to an emergent capacity to learn in-context from example demonstrations. Despite progress, theoretical understanding of this phenomenon remains limited. We argue that in-context learning relies on recombination of compositional operations found in natural language data. We derive an information-theoretic bound showing how in-context learning abilities arise from generic next-token prediction when the pretraining distribution has sufficient amounts of compositional structure, under linguistically motivated assumptions. A second bound provides a theoretical justification for the empirical success of prompting LLMs to output intermediate steps towards an answer. To validate theoretical predictions, we introduce a controlled setup for inducing in-context learning; unlike previous approaches, it accounts for the compositional nature of language. Trained transformers can perform in-context learning for a range of tasks, in a manner consistent with the theoretical results. Mirroring real-world LLMs in a miniature setup, in-context learning emerges when scaling parameters and data, and models perform better when prompted to output intermediate steps. Probing shows that in-context learning is supported by a representation of the input's compositional structure. Taken together, these results provide a step towards theoretical understanding of emergent behavior in large language models.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“Xie et al. (2022), Wang et al. (2023b), and Hahn and Goyal (2023) provided an interpretation of ICL rooted in latent variable models.”
From The mystery of In-context learning: a comprehensive survey on interpretation and analysis (2023) · cites this paper as Hahn and Goyal (2023)
In the citing paper
“Moreover, Hahn and Goyal (2023) utilized information theory to show an error bound for ICL under linguistically motivated assumptions, explaining how next-token prediction can bring about the ICL ability.”
From A Survey on In-context Learning (2024) · cites this paper as Hahn and Goyal, 2023
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
What learning algorithm is in-context learning? Investigations with linear models
Akyürek, E., Schuurmans, D., Andreas, J., Ma, T., & Zhou, D. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2211.15661 · Cited by 86
Cited by
A Survey on In-context Learning
Dong, Q., Li, L., Dai, D., Zheng, C., Ma, J., Li, R., Xia, H., Xu, J., Wu, Z., Chang, B., et al. (2024) · Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp-main.64 · Cited by 649
The mystery of In-context learning: a comprehensive survey on interpretation and analysis
Zhou, Y., Li, J., Xiang, Y., Yan, H., Gui, L., & He, Y. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2311.00237 · Cited by 33
Are Emergent Abilities in Large Language Models just In-Context Learning?
Lu, S., Bigoulaeva, I., Sachdeva, R., Madabushi, H. T., & Gurevych, I. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2309.01809 · Cited by 12
Metadata
- Authors
- Hahn, M., & Goyal, N.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- arXiv
- 2303.07971
- References
- 1
- Type
- Preprint
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.