Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Exploring Demonstration Ensembling for In-context Learning

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 2308.08780 v2 pith:SHPHU6YD submitted 2023-08-17 cs.CL cs.AI

classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords demonstrationsensemblingconcatenationsomeapproachdemonstrationdenseexamples
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

In-context learning (ICL) operates by showing language models (LMs) examples of input-output pairs for a given task, i.e., demonstrations. The standard approach for ICL is to prompt the LM with concatenated demonstrations followed by the test input. This approach suffers from some issues. First, concatenation offers almost no control over the contribution of each demo to the model prediction. This can be sub-optimal when some demonstrations are irrelevant to the test example. Second, due to the input length limit of some transformer models, it might be infeasible to fit many examples into the context, especially when dealing with long-input tasks. In this work, we explore Demonstration Ensembling (DENSE) as an alternative to simple concatenation. DENSE predicts outputs using subsets (i.e., buckets) of the demonstrations and then combines the output probabilities resulting from each subset to produce the final prediction. We study different ensembling methods using GPT-j and experiment on 12 language tasks. Our experiments show weighted max ensembling to outperform vanilla concatenation by as large as 2.4 average points. Code available at https://github.com/mukhal/icl-ensembling.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Which Prompting Technique Should I Use? An Empirical Investigation of Prompting Techniques for Software Engineering Tasks

    cs.SE 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Across ten software engineering tasks and four LLMs, no prompting technique wins consistently; ES-KNN is best on many tasks, some techniques underperform the baseline, and USC is best for code QA and code generation.

Pith tools