Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

Is In-Context Learning Sufficient for Instruction Following in LLMs?

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

arxiv 2405.19874 v3 pith:7RZRHHH4 submitted 2024-05-30 cs.CL cs.AIcs.LG

classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.LG
keywords instructionllmsin-contextalignmentexamplesfollowingurialbase
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

In-context learning (ICL) allows LLMs to learn from examples without changing their weights: this is a particularly promising capability for long-context LLMs that can potentially learn from many examples. Recently, Lin et al. (2024) proposed URIAL, a method using only three in-context examples to align base LLMs, achieving non-trivial instruction following performance. In this work, we show that, while effective, ICL alignment with URIAL still underperforms compared to instruction fine-tuning on the established benchmark MT-Bench, especially with more capable base LLMs. We then uncover the most relevant elements for successful in-context alignment, finding the crucial role of the decoding parameters. Based on these insights, we show that the approach of URIAL can indeed be improved by adding high-quality, potentially carefully selected via greedy search, demonstrations in context, getting closer to the performance of instruct models. Finally, we provide the first, to our knowledge, systematic comparison of ICL and instruction fine-tuning (IFT) for instruction following in the low data regime, where ICL can be a viable alternative to IFT. Overall, our work advances the understanding of ICL as an alignment technique and its relationship to IFT. We provide our code at https://github.com/tml-epfl/icl-alignment.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. United Minds or Isolated Agents? Exploring Coordination of LLMs under Cognitive Load Theory

    cs.AI 2025-06 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    CoThinker, a multi-agent LLM framework inspired by human cognitive load theory, outperforms single-agent and debate baselines on reasoning-heavy benchmarks while underperforming on low-load instruction following.

  2. Agent Memory Distillation: Empowering Small LLM Agents with Hierarchical Teacher Memory

    cs.AI 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Injecting hierarchical teacher memories (workflow, subtask, function) into small agents improves tool-use accuracy by 27.2pp, 11.2pp, and 3.4pp on AppWorld, BFCL V3, and ToolSandbox without training.

  3. OptiSeq: Ordering Examples On-The-Fly for In-Context Learning

    cs.LG 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    OptiSeq selects the in-context example ordering whose output gets the highest zero-shot log-likelihood, improving few-shot accuracy by up to 10.5 points in tests on API sequencing and classification.

Pith tools