REVIEW 6 cited by
Do pretrained Transformers Learn In-Context by Gradient Descent?
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
The emergence of In-Context Learning (ICL) in LLMs remains a remarkable phenomenon that is partially understood. To explain ICL, recent studies have created theoretical connections to Gradient Descent (GD). We ask, do such connections hold up in actual pre-trained language models? We highlight the limiting assumptions in prior works that make their setup considerably different from the practical setup in which language models are trained. For example, their experimental verification uses \emph{ICL objective} (training models explicitly for ICL), which differs from the emergent ICL in the wild. Furthermore, the theoretical hand-constructed weights used in these studies have properties that don't match those of real LLMs. We also look for evidence in real models. We observe that ICL and GD have different sensitivity to the order in which they observe demonstrations. Finally, we probe and compare the ICL vs. GD hypothesis in a natural setting. We conduct comprehensive empirical analyses on language models pre-trained on natural data (LLaMa-7B). Our comparisons of three performance metrics highlight the inconsistent behavior of ICL and GD as a function of various factors such as datasets, models, and the number of demonstrations. We observe that ICL and GD modify the output distribution of language models differently. These results indicate that \emph{the equivalence between ICL and GD remains an open hypothesis} and calls for further studies.
Forward citations
Cited by 6 Pith papers
-
Mitigating Many-shot Jailbreak Attacks with One Single Demonstration
A single safety demonstration appended at inference time mitigates many-shot jailbreak attacks by counteracting implicit malicious fine-tuning on harmful examples.
-
Fine-tuning vs. In-context Learning in Large Language Models: A Formal Language Learning Perspective
Fine-tuning shows higher proficiency than in-context learning on in-distribution generalization in formal languages, with equal out-of-distribution performance and diverging inductive biases at high proficiency.
-
Fine-tuning vs. In-context Learning in Large Language Models: A Formal Language Learning Perspective
A controlled formal language task reveals fine-tuning outperforms in-context learning on in-distribution generalization but equals it on out-of-distribution, with ICL showing greater sensitivity to model size and toke...
-
Relational reasoning and inductive bias in transformers and large language models
In-weights learning induces linear embeddings enabling transitive inference in transformers, whereas in-context learning defaults to match-and-copy unless pre-trained on linear tasks or prompted with linear mental maps.
-
Transformers Don't In-Context Learn Least Squares Regression
In-context regression transformers do not approximate OLS: they underperform it even in-distribution, fail on out-of-subspace prompts, and their failures correlate with a low-rank spectral signature in the residual stream.
-
A Survey on In-context Learning
The paper surveys definitions, techniques, applications, and challenges in in-context learning for large language models.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.