Cited by 11Topic ModelingDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot LearningNatural Language Processing Techniques

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Probing the Decision Boundaries of In-context Learning in Large Language Models

Open access
Zhao, Siyan, Nguyen, Tung, Grover, Aditya·2024·Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 37

Abstract

In-context learning is a key paradigm in large language models (LLMs) that enables them to generalize to new tasks and domains by simply prompting these models with a few exemplars without explicit parameter updates. Many attempts have been made to understand in-context learning in LLMs as a function of model scale, pretraining data, and other factors. In this work, we propose a new mechanism to probe and understand in-context learning from the lens of decision boundaries for in-context binary classification. Decision boundaries are straightforward to visualize and provide important information about the qualitative behavior of the inductive biases of standard classifiers. To our surprise, we find that the decision boundaries learned by current LLMs in simple binary classification tasks are often irregular and non-smooth, regardless of linear separability in the underlying task. This paper investigates the factors influencing these decision boundaries and explores methods to enhance their generalizability. We assess various approaches, including training-free and fine-tuning methods for LLMs, the impact of model architecture, and the effectiveness of active prompting techniques for smoothing decision boundaries in a data-efficient manner. Our findings provide a deeper understanding of in-context learning dynamics and offer practical improvements for enhancing robustness and generalizability of in-context learning.

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

Crossref · 10.52202/079017-4144

Cites

1 of 1 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?

  • As with all machine learning algorithms, its quality is limited by its training data-in our case, the Munich cohort.

    “Thus, as with all machine learning algorithms, its quality is limited by its training data44—in our case, the Munich cohort.”

    From Generating dermatopathology reports from gigapixel whole slide images with HistoGPT (2025) · cites this paper as [44]

    The Introduction (page unavailable) identifies pretraining data as a factor affecting LLM decision-boundary smoothness, and Section 4.3 examines how fine-tuning on classification tasks changes those boundaries. That supports a narrower point about training data influencing LLM behavior, but the paper does not establish that the quality of all machine-learning algorithms is limited by their training data. The Munich cohort is the citing authors’ own application, not a claim attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

  • Mistral 7B

    Jiang, A. Q., Sablayrolles, A., Mensch, A., Bamford, C., Chaplot, D. S., Casas, D. D. L., Bressand, F., Lengyel, G., Lample, G., Saulnier, L., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.06825 · Cited by 340

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 42

  1. J. Achiam, S. Adler, S. Agarwal, L. Ahmad, I. Akkaya, F. L. Aleman, D. Almeida, J. Altenschmidt, S. Altman, S. Anadkat, et al. Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774, 2023. · arXiv
  2. R. Agarwal, A. Singh, L. M. Zhang, B. Bohnet, S. Chan, A. Anand, Z. Abbas, A. Nova, J. D. Co-Reyes, E. Chu, et al. Many-shot in-context learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.11018, 2024. · arXiv
  3. K. Ahn, X. Cheng, H. Daneshmand, and S. Sra. Transformers learn to implement preconditioned gradient descent for in-context learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024.
  4. E. Akyürek, D. Schuurmans, J. Andreas, T. Ma, and D. Zhou. What learning algorithm is in-context learning? investigations with linear models. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations.
  5. Y. Bai, F. Chen, H. Wang, C. Xiong, and S. Mei. Transformers as statisticians: Provable in-context learning with in-context algorithm selection. Advances in neural information processing systems, 36, 2024.
  6. A. Bertsch, M. Ivgi, U. Alon, J. Berant, M. R. Gormley, and G. Neubig. In-context learning with long-context models: An in-depth exploration. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.00200, 2024. · arXiv
  7. T. Brown, B. Mann, N. Ryder, M. Subbiah, J. D. Kaplan, P. Dhariwal, A. Neelakantan, P. Shyam, G. Sastry, A. Askell, et al. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877-1901, 2020.
  8. X. Chen, R. A. Chi, X. Wang, and D. Zhou. Premise order matters in reasoning with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.08939, 2024. · arXiv
  9. A. Conneau and D. Kiela. Senteval: An evaluation toolkit for universal sentence representations. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.05449, 2018. · arXiv
  10. D. Dai, Y. Sun, L. Dong, Y. Hao, S. Ma, Z. Sui, and F. Wei. Why can gpt learn in-context? language models secretly perform gradient descent as meta-optimizers. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 4005-4019, 2023.
  11. S. Garg, D. Tsipras, P. S. Liang, and G. Valiant. What can transformers learn in-context? a case study of simple function classes. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:30583-30598, 2022.
  12. E. J. Hu, P. Wallis, Z. Allen-Zhu, Y. Li, S. Wang, L. Wang, W. Chen, et al. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2021.
  13. J. Kaplan, S. McCandlish, T. Henighan, T. B. Brown, B. Chess, R. Child, S. Gray, A. Radford, J. Wu, and D. Amodei. Scaling laws for neural language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.08361, 2020. · arXiv
  14. A. Lampinen, I. Dasgupta, S. Chan, K. Mathewson, M. Tessler, A. Creswell, J. McClelland, J. Wang, and F. Hill. Can language models learn from explanations in context? In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022, pages 537-563, 2022.
  15. M. Li, S. Gong, J. Feng, Y. Xu, J. Zhang, Z. Wu, and L. Kong. In-context learning with many demonstration examples. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.04931, 2023a. · arXiv
  16. Y. Li, M. E. Ildiz, D. Papailiopoulos, and S. Oymak. Transformers as algorithms: Generalization and stability in in-context learning. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 19565-19594.
  17. PMLR, 2023b.
  18. P. Malo, A. Sinha, P. Korhonen, J. Wallenius, and P. Takala. Good debt or bad debt: Detecting semantic orientations in economic texts. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(4):782-796, 2014.
  19. S. Min, M. Lewis, L. Zettlemoyer, and H. Hajishirzi. Metaicl: Learning to learn in context. In Proceed- ings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 2791-2809, 2022a.
  20. S. Min, X. Lyu, A. Holtzman, M. Artetxe, M. Lewis, H. Hajishirzi, and L. Zettlemoyer. Rethinking the role of demonstrations: What makes in-context learning work? In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 11048-11064, 2022b.
  21. Mollas, Z. Chrysopoulou, S. Karlos, and G. Tsoumakas. Ethos: an online hate speech detection dataset. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.08328, 2020. · arXiv
  22. S. Müller, N. Hollmann, S. P. Arango, J. Grabocka, and F. Hutter. Transformers can do bayesian inference. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2021.
  23. T. Nguyen and A. Grover. Transformer neural processes: Uncertainty-aware meta learning via sequence modeling. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 16569-16594.
  24. PMLR, 2022.
  25. T. Nguyen and A. Grover. Lico: Large language models for in-context molecular optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.18851, 2024. · arXiv
  26. T. Nguyen, S. Agrawal, and A. Grover. Expt: Synthetic pretraining for few-shot experimental design. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:45856-45869, 2023.
  27. F. Pedregosa, G. Varoquaux, A. Gramfort, V. Michel, B. Thirion, O. Grisel, M. Blondel, P. Pretten- hofer, R. Weiss, V. Dubourg, J. Vanderplas, A. Passos, D. Cournapeau, M. Brucher, M. Perrot, and E. Duchesnay. Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12:2825-2830, 2011.
  28. M. Reid, N. Savinov, D. Teplyashin, D. Lepikhin, T. Lillicrap, J.-b. Alayrac, R. Soricut, A. Lazaridou, O. Firat, J. Schrittwieser, et al. Gemini 1.5: Unlocking multimodal understanding across millions of tokens of context. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.05530, 2024. · arXiv
  29. F. Shi, X. Chen, K. Misra, N. Scales, D. Dohan, E. H. Chi, N. Schärli, and D. Zhou. Large language models can be easily distracted by irrelevant context. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 31210-31227. PMLR, 2023.
  30. R. Socher, A. Perelygin, J. Wu, J. Chuang, C. D. Manning, A. Y. Ng, and C. Potts. Recursive deep models for semantic compositionality over a sentiment treebank. In Proceedings of the 2013 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, pages 1631-1642, 2013.
  31. H. Touvron, L. Martin, K. Stone, P. Albert, A. Almahairi, Y. Babaei, N. Bashlykov, S. Batra, P. Bhargava, S. Bhosale, et al. Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09288, 2023. · arXiv
  32. J. Von Oswald, E. Niklasson, E. Randazzo, J. Sacramento, A. Mordvintsev, A. Zhmoginov, and M. Vladymyrov. Transformers learn in-context by gradient descent. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 35151-35174. PMLR, 2023.
  33. A. Wang, Y. Pruksachatkun, N. Nangia, A. Singh, J. Michael, F. Hill, O. Levy, and S. Bowman. Superglue: A stickier benchmark for general-purpose language understanding systems. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32, 2019.
  34. A. Webson and E. Pavlick. Do prompt-based models really understand the meaning of their prompts? In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 2300-2344, 2022.
  35. J. Wei, Y. Tay, R. Bommasani, C. Raffel, B. Zoph, S. Borgeaud, D. Yogatama, M. Bosma, D. Zhou, D. Metzler, et al. Emergent abilities of large language models. Transactions on Machine Learning Research, 2022.
  36. J. Wei, J. Wei, Y. Tay, D. Tran, A. Webson, Y. Lu, X. Chen, H. Liu, D. Huang, D. Zhou, et al. Larger language models do in-context learning differently. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.03846, 2023. · arXiv
  37. N. Wies, Y. Levine, and A. Shashua. The learnability of in-context learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024.
  38. J. Wu, D. Zou, Z. Chen, V. Braverman, Q. Gu, and P. Bartlett. How many pretraining tasks are needed for in-context learning of linear regression? In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023.
  39. M. Xia, T. Gao, Z. Zeng, and D. Chen. Sheared llama: Accelerating language model pre-training via structured pruning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06694, 2023. · arXiv
  40. R. Zhang, S. Frei, and P. L. Bartlett. Trained transformers learn linear models in-context. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.09927, 2023. · arXiv
  41. X. Zhang, J. Zhao, and Y. LeCun. Character-level convolutional networks for text classification. Advances in neural information processing systems, 28, 2015.
  42. S. Zhao, J. Dang, and A. Grover. Group preference optimization: Few-shot alignment of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.11523, 2023. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Zhao, S., Nguyen, T., & Grover, A.
Venue
Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 37
Published
2024
Pages
130408-130432
ISSN
1049-5258 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4415795211
Cited by
11
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3
FWCI
1.74
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • neural information processing systems (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (CAREER, 2341040)
  • Cisco Systems
  • Samsung
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
in-context learning, decision boundaries, large language models, prompt engineering

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