Cited by 69Topic ModelingDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot LearningNeural Networks and Applications

Data Distributional Properties Drive Emergent In-Context Learning in Transformers

Open access
Chan, Stephanie, Santoro, Adam, Lampinen, Andrew, Wang, Jane, Singh, Aaditya, Richemond, Pierre, McClelland, James, Hill, Felix·2022·Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35

Abstract

Large transformer-based models are able to perform in-context few-shot learning, without being explicitly trained for it. This observation raises the question: what aspects of the training regime lead to this emergent behavior? Here, we show that this behavior is driven by the distributions of the training data itself. In-context learning emerges when the training data exhibits particular distributional properties such as burstiness (items appear in clusters rather than being uniformly distributed over time) and having large numbers of rarely occurring classes. In-context learning also emerges more strongly when item meanings or interpretations are dynamic rather than fixed. These properties are exemplified by natural language, but are also inherent to naturalistic data in a wide range of other domains. They also depart significantly from the uniform, i.i.d. training distributions typically used for standard supervised learning. In our initial experiments, we found that in-context learning traded off against more conventional weight-based learning, and models were unable to achieve both simultaneously. However, our later experiments uncovered that the two modes of learning could co-exist in a single model when it was trained on data following a skewed Zipfian distribution -- another common property of naturalistic data, including language. In further experiments, we found that naturalistic data distributions were only able to elicit in-context learning in transformers, and not in recurrent models. In sum, our findings indicate how the transformer architecture works together with particular properties of the training data to drive the intriguing emergent in-context learning behaviour of large language models, and how future work might encourage both in-context and in-weights learning in domains beyond language.

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

Crossref · 10.52202/068431-1371

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.

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?

  • The presence of in-context learning in LLMs can be traced back to data distributional properties such as burstiness and the presence of large numbers of rarely occurring classes.

    “For example, Chan et al., 2022 have demonstrated that the presence of in-context learning in LLMs can be traced back to data distributional properties such as burstiness, where items appear in clusters rather than being uniformly distributed over time, and the presence of large numbers of rarely occurring classes.”

    From Machine Psychology (2023) · cites this paper as Chan et al., 2022

    The Introduction (p. 3) reports that in-context learning emerged in a transformer trained on Omniglot data when the data included burstiness and many rarely occurring classes. But the Discussion (pp. 8–9) says these properties *may explain* in-context learning in large language models; the paper did not directly demonstrate that they cause it in LLMs. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • LLMs can succumb to various biases influencing the processing of prompts.

    “Furthermore, LLMs can succumb to various biases influencing the processing of prompts (Zhao, Wallace, et al., 2021;Chan et al., 2022).”

    From Machine Psychology (2023) · cites this paper as Chan et al., 2022

    The Discussion (p. 9) reports a bias in experimental transformers toward using either labels learned during training or labels supplied in the current context. That supports the general idea that prior learning can affect how a model uses contextual input, but the paper does not establish that LLMs succumb to various biases when processing prompts; its experiments use image-label sequences rather than LLM prompts. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Practitioners did not explicitly encode or train for a transformer LLM's ability to learn from a few examples in context, but it nonetheless arose from the machine learning architecture, data, and learning signal.

    “For example, practitioners did not explicitly encode or train for a transformer LLM's ability to learn from a few examples in context (Brown et al., 2020), but it nonetheless arose from the machine learning architecture, data, and learning signal (Chan et al., 2022;Oswald et al., 2023).”

    From Machine Psychology (2023) · cites this paper as Chan 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.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Part of this paper’s reference list could not be split into single entries.

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. [3]3. Chelsea Finn, Pieter Abbeel, and Sergey Levine. Model-Agnostic Meta-Learning for Fast Adaptation of Deep Networks. arXiv:1703.03400 [cs] , March 2017. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1703. 03400 . arXiv: 1703.03400. - W. Nelson Francis and Henry Kucera. Brown Corpus Manual, 1979. URL http://korpus.uib. no/icame/brown/bcm.html . · arXiv
  2. [5]5. William A. Gale, Kenneth W. Church, and David Yarowsky. One Sense Per Discourse. In Speech and Natural Language: Proceedings of a Workshop Held at Harriman, New York, February 23-26, 1992 , 1992. URL https://aclanthology.org/H92-1045 .
  3. [6]6. Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition. arXiv:1512.03385 [cs] , December 2015. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1512. 03385 . arXiv: 1512.03385. · arXiv
  4. [7]7. Felix Hill, Olivier Tieleman, Tamara von Glehn, Nathaniel Wong, Hamza Merzic, and Stephen Clark. Grounded Language Learning Fast and Slow. arXiv:2009.01719 [cs] , October 2020. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2009.01719 . arXiv: 2009.01719. · arXiv
  5. [8]8. Sepp Hochreiter and Jürgen Schmidhuber. Long Short-Term Memory. Neural Computation , 9(8): 1735-1780, November 1997. ISSN 0899-7667. doi: 10.1162/neco.1997.9.8.1735. Conference Name: Neural Computation. · DOI · Paper page
  6. [9]9. Angelos Katharopoulos and François Fleuret. Not All Samples Are Created Equal: Deep Learning with Importance Sampling. arXiv:1803.00942 [cs] , October 2019. URL http://arxiv.org/ abs/1803.00942 . arXiv: 1803.00942. · arXiv
  7. [10]10. Dmitry Krotov and John Hopfield. Large Associative Memory Problem in Neurobiology and Machine Learning. arXiv:2008.06996 [cond-mat, q-bio, stat] , April 2021. URL http://arxiv.org/ abs/2008.06996 . arXiv: 2008.06996. · arXiv
  8. [11]11. Dharshan Kumaran, Demis Hassabis, and James L. McClelland. What Learning Systems do Intelligent Agents Need? Complementary Learning Systems Theory Updated. Trends in Cognitive Sciences , 20(7):512-534, July 2016. ISSN 13646613. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2016.05.004. URL https: //linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1364661316300432 . · DOI · Paper page
  9. [12]12. Brenden M. Lake, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Joshua B. Tenenbaum. The Omniglot Challenge: A 3-Year Progress Report. arXiv:1902.03477 [cs] , February 2019. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/ 1902.03477 . arXiv: 1902.03477. · arXiv
  10. [13]13. Renaud Lambiotte, Lionel Tabourier, and Jean-Charles Delvenne. Burstiness and spreading on temporal networks. The European Physical Journal B , 86(7):320, July 2013. ISSN 1434-6028, 1434-6036. doi: 10.1140/epjb/e2013-40456-9. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.0543 . arXiv:1305.0543 [physics, q-bio]. · DOI
  11. [14]14. James L McClelland and Randall C O'Reilly. Why There Are Complementary Learning Systems in the Hippocampus and Neocortex:InsightsFrom the Successesand Failuresof Connectionist Models of Learning and Memory. page 39, 1995.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chan, S., Santoro, A., Lampinen, A., Wang, J., Singh, A., Richemond, P., McClelland, J., & Hill, F.
Venue
Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35
Published
2022
Pages
18878-18891
ISSN
1049-5258 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7133195599
Cited by
69
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 4
FWCI
8.02
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • neural information processing systems (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
DeepMind
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 › Neural Networks and Applications
Keywords
in-context learning, transformer models, data distribution, emergent behavior, distributional properties, large language models, prompt 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