The DOI matches its DataCite record.
What In-Context Learning "Learns" In-Context: Disentangling Task Recognition and Task Learning
Open accessAbstract
Large language models (LLMs) exploit in-context learning (ICL) to solve tasks with only a few demonstrations, but its mechanisms are not yet well-understood. Some works suggest that LLMs only recall already learned concepts from pre-training, while others hint that ICL performs implicit learning over demonstrations. We characterize two ways through which ICL leverages demonstrations. Task recognition (TR) captures the extent to which LLMs can recognize a task through demonstrations -- even without ground-truth labels -- and apply their pre-trained priors, whereas task learning (TL) is the ability to capture new input-label mappings unseen in pre-training. Using a wide range of classification datasets and three LLM families (GPT-3, LLaMA and OPT), we design controlled experiments to disentangle the roles of TR and TL in ICL. We show that (1) models can achieve non-trivial performance with only TR, and TR does not further improve with larger models or more demonstrations; (2) LLMs acquire TL as the model scales, and TL's performance consistently improves with more demonstrations in context. Our findings unravel two different forces behind ICL and we advocate for discriminating them in future ICL research due to their distinct nature.
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?
Mapping original natural language labels into numbered labels tests how well a model can learn new tasks instead of relying on its pre-trained priors.
“One difference from previous works is that we map original natural language labels (e.g., location ) into numbered labels (i.e., 0 , 1 ) to test how well a model can learn new tasks instead of relying on its pre-trained priors (Wei et al., 2023; Pan et al., 2023; Min et al., 2022).”
From HELMET: How to Evaluate Long-Context Language Models Effectively and Thoroughly (2024) · cites this paper as Pan et al., 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
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 27
- Ekin Akyürek, Dale Schuurmans, Jacob Andreas, Tengyu Ma, and Denny Zhou. 2023. What learn- ing algorithm is in-context learning? investigations with linear models. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR).
- Hritik Bansal, Karthik Gopalakrishnan, Saket Dingli- wal, Sravan Bodapati, Katrin Kirchhoff, and Dan Roth. 2022. Rethinking the role of scale for in-context learning: An interpretability-based case study at 66 billion scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.09095. · arXiv
- Valerio Basile, Cristina Bosco, Elisabetta Fersini, Debora Nozza, Viviana Patti, Francisco Manuel Rangel Pardo, Paolo Rosso, and Manuela San- guinetti. 2019. SemEval-2019 task 5: Multilin- gual detection of hate speech against immigrants and women in Twitter. In Proceedings of the 13th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation, pages 54-63. Association for Computational Lin- guistics.
- Samuel R. Bowman, Gabor Angeli, Christopher Potts, and Christopher D. Manning. 2015. A large an- notated corpus for learning natural language infer- ence. In Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 632-642.
- 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 (NeurIPS), volume 33, pages 1877-1901.
- Stephanie Chan, Adam Santoro, Andrew Lampinen, Jane Wang, Aaditya Singh, Pierre Richemond, James McClelland, and Felix Hill. 2022. Data distributional properties drive emergent in-context learning in transformers. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), vol- ume 35, pages 18878-18891.
- Damai Dai, Yutao Sun, Li Dong, Yaru Hao, Shum- ing Ma, Zhifang Sui, and Furu Wei. 2023. Why can GPT learn in-context? language models im- plicitly perform gradient descent as meta-optimizers. In ICLR 2023 Workshop on Mathematical and Empirical Understanding of Foundation Models.
- William B. Dolan and Chris Brockett. 2005. Automati- cally constructing a corpus of sentential paraphrases. In Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Paraphrasing (IWP2005).
- Hector Levesque, Ernest Davis, and Leora Mor- genstern. 2012. The winograd schema chal- lenge. In Thirteenth International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. · DOI
- P. Malo, A. Sinha, P. Korhonen, J. Wallenius, and P. Takala. 2014. Good debt or bad debt: Detect- ing semantic orientations in economic texts. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology.
- Marco Marelli, Stefano Menini, Marco Baroni, Luisa Bentivogli, Raffaella Bernardi, and Roberto Zam- parelli. 2014. A SICK cure for the evaluation of compositional distributional semantic models. In International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC), pages 216-223.
- Sewon Min, Xinxi Lyu, Ari Holtzman, Mikel Artetxe, Mike Lewis, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Luke Zettle- moyer. 2022. Rethinking the role of demonstrations: What makes in-context learning work? In Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 11048-11064.
- Saif Mohammad, Felipe Bravo-Marquez, Mohammad Salameh, and Svetlana Kiritchenko. 2018. SemEval- 2018 task 1: Affect in tweets. In Proceedings of the 12th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation, pages 1-17. Association for Computa- tional Linguistics.
- Ioannis Mollas, Zoe Chrysopoulou, Stamatis Karlos, and Grigorios Tsoumakas. 2020. Ethos: an on- line hate speech detection dataset. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.08328. · arXiv
- Catherine Olsson, Nelson Elhage, Neel Nanda, Nicholas Joseph, Nova DasSarma, Tom Henighan, Ben Mann, Amanda Askell, Yuntao Bai, Anna Chen, et al. 2022. In-context learning and induction heads. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.11895. · arXiv
- Yasaman Razeghi, Robert L Logan IV, Matt Gardner, and Sameer Singh. 2022. Impact of pretraining term frequencies on few-shot numerical reasoning. In Findings of Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 840-854. Association for Computational Linguistics.
- Elvis Saravia, Hsien-Chi Toby Liu, Yen-Hao Huang, Junlin Wu, and Yi-Shin Chen. 2018. CARER: Con- textualized affect representations for emotion recog- nition. In Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 3687-3697.
- Emily Sheng and David Uthus. 2020. Investigating societal biases in a poetry composition system. In Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Gender Bias in Natural Language Processing, pages 93-106. Association for Computational Linguistics.
- Richard Socher, Alex Perelygin, Jean Wu, Jason Chuang, Christopher D. Manning, Andrew Ng, and Christopher Potts. 2013. Recursive deep models for semantic compositionality over a sentiment tree- bank. In Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 1631-1642.
- Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, Aurelien Rodriguez, Armand Joulin, Edouard Grave, and Guillaume Lample. 2023. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language mod- els. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971. · arXiv
- Johannes von Oswald, Eyvind Niklasson, Ettore Ran- dazzo, João Sacramento, Alexander Mordvintsev, Andrey Zhmoginov, and Max Vladymyrov. 2022. Transformers learn in-context by gradient descent. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.07677. · arXiv
- Ellen M Voorhees and Dawn M Tice. 2000. Building a question answering test collection. In Association for Computing Machinery Special Interest Group in Information Retrieval (ACM SIGIR), pages 200- 207. · DOI
- Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Yi Tay, Dustin Tran, Albert Webson, Yifeng Lu, Xinyun Chen, Hanxiao Liu, Da Huang, Denny Zhou, et al. 2023. Larger language models do in-context learning differently. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.03846. · arXiv
- Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pier- ric Cistac, Tim Rault, Remi Louf, Morgan Funtow- icz, Joe Davison, Sam Shleifer, Patrick von Platen, Clara Ma, Yacine Jernite, Julien Plu, Canwen Xu, Teven Le Scao, Sylvain Gugger, Mariama Drame, Quentin Lhoest, and Alexander Rush. 2020. Trans- formers: State-of-the-art natural language process- ing. In Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 38-45.
- Sang Michael Xie, Aditi Raghunathan, Percy Liang, and Tengyu Ma. 2022. An explanation of in-context learning as implicit bayesian infer- ence. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR).
- Kang Min Yoo, Junyeob Kim, Hyuhng Joon Kim, Hyunsoo Cho, Hwiyeol Jo, Sang-Woo Lee, Sang- goo Lee, and Taeuk Kim. 2022. Ground-truth labels matter: A deeper look into input-label demonstra- tions. In Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 2422-2437.
- Susan Zhang, Stephen Roller, Naman Goyal, Mikel Artetxe, Moya Chen, Shuohui Chen, Christopher De- wan, Mona Diab, Xian Li, Xi Victoria Lin, et al. 2022. OPT: Open pre-trained transformer language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.01068. · arXiv
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A Survey of Large Language Models
Zhao, W. X., Zhou, K., Li, J., Tang, T., Dong, Z., Hou, Y., Zhang, B., Min, Y., Zhang, J., Liu, P., et al. (2026) · Frontiers of Computer Science · doi:10.1007/s11704-026-60308-3 · Cited by 2,093
Agarwal, R., Singh, A., Zhang, L. M., Bohnet, B., Rosias, L., Chan, S., Zhang, B., Anand, A., Abbas, Z., Nova, A., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.11018 · Cited by 35
“Another limitation of our work is that we don’t completely understand why performance can some-times degrades with more examples in the prompt (for example, for MATH).”
HELMET: How to Evaluate Long-Context Language Models Effectively and Thoroughly
Yen, H., Gao, T., Hou, M., Ding, K., Fleischer, D., Izsak, P., Wasserblat, M., & Chen, D. (2024) · arXiv · Cited by 2
“One difference from previous works is that we map original natural language labels (e.g., location ) into numbered labels (i.e., 0 , 1 ) to test how well a model can learn new tasks instead of relying on its pre-trained priors (Wei et al., 2023; Pan et al., 2023; Min et al., 2022).”
BackgroundSelf-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Pan, J., Gao, T., Chen, H., & Chen, D.
- Affiliations
- Princeton University (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- Pages
- 8298-8319
- arXiv
- 2305.09731
- OpenAlex
- W4385571671
- Cited by
- 29
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6
- FWCI
- 5.14
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL (Findings of ACL) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (2211779)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Keywords
- in-context learning, task identification, task learning, large language models, implicit learning, few-shot classification, model scaling, GPT-3, llamas, OPT
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
