HackerPapers

arXiv:2204.02329cs.CL

Can language models learn from explanations in context?

Andrew K. Lampinen, Ishita Dasgupta, Stephanie C. Y. Chan, Kory Matthewson, Michael Henry Tessler, Antonia Creswell, James L. McClelland, Jane X. Wang, Felix Hill

Early discovery. Linked by one identifiable commenter. This paper is outside the main ranking; a mention is not an endorsement.

Abstract

Language Models (LMs) can perform new tasks by adapting to a few in-context examples. For humans, explanations that connect examples to task principles can improve learning. We therefore investigate whether explanations of few-shot examples can help LMs. We annotate questions from 40 challenging tasks with answer explanations, and various matched control explanations. We evaluate how different types of explanations, instructions, and controls affect zero- and few-shot performance. We analyze these results using statistical multilevel modeling techniques that account for the nested dependencies among conditions, tasks, prompts, and models. We find that explanations can improve performance -- even without tuning. Furthermore, explanations hand-tuned for performance on a small validation set offer substantially larger benefits, and building a prompt by selecting examples and explanations together substantially improves performance over selecting examples alone. Finally, even untuned explanations outperform carefully matched controls, suggesting that the benefits are due to the link between an example and its explanation, rather than lower-level features. However, only large models benefit. In summary, explanations can support the in-context learning of large LMs on challenging tasks.

arXiv comments
Findings of EMNLP 2022
Journal reference
DOI
Subjects
cs.CLComputation and Language cs.AIArtificial Intelligence cs.LGMachine Learning

On Hacker News

Linked by 1 identifiable commenter in 4 comments across 3 threads, from May 2023 to May 2023.

Comments linking this paper, per year.

Discussed in comments3 threads

  1. Governance of Superintelligence 2 comments
    • >It's not better at reasoning. It's barely even capable of it You are wrong. and there's many papers to show otherwise. Algorithmic, Casual, Inference, Analogical LLMs reason just fine https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.09196 https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.00050…

      famouswafflesView on HNParent context

    • I don't think you took more than a passing glance, if any at those papers. What you describe is impossible with these 3. https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.09196 - new evaluation set introduced with the paper. modelled after tests that previously only had visual equivalents.…

      famouswafflesView on HNParent context

  2. Rodney Brooks on GPT-4 1 comment
    • No world model ? A world model is so obvious papers like these are more confirmation than surprise https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.11169 https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.13382 There a certain sentiment that AGI however you wish to define it won't infact be a "We'll know it when we see it"…

      famouswafflesView on HNParent context

    • LLMs are not very bad at reasoning. People say this but struggle to demonstrate how. There are many types of reasoning. For some like abstract analogical reasoning, LLMs are top % performers. https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.09196 There's many papers at this point demonstrating pretty…

      famouswafflesView on HNParent context

Submitted to Hacker News

Connected through shared HN threads, not inferred similarity or a recommendation.