Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Incomplete In-context Learning

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read When a retrieval database lacks examples of some classes, decomposing the classification into per-class yes/no questions—so that every missing label still contributes "not this class" demonstrations—restores in-context learning accuracy…

desk verdict Real problem, simple fix, consistent gains; the 'complete VICL' claim is overstated but the empirical core stands. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.07251 v1 pith:UXMG2TDB submitted 2025-05-12 cs.CV cs.AI

Wenqiang Wang , Yangshijie Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AI
keywords incompleteretrievaldatabasein-contextlearningvisioniterativejudgmentsbinaryclassificationdecompositionlargevision-languagemodelspromptmissinglabels
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper introduces a previously unstudied failure mode of vision in-context learning: the retrieval database may contain labeled examples for only some of the classes in a classification task. It shows empirically that as more labels go missing, accuracy falls, though it stays above zero-shot prompting. The proposed remedy, IJIP, reformulates the m-class problem as m independent "Is this class C_j?" questions, relabeling every available image as either a positive or a negative for each sub-question. Because an image labeled with one class is implicitly a negative for all other classes, even a label with no examples still contributes "not this class" demonstrations, making the incomplete database behave like a complete one. The paper reports that IJIP beats all six baselines in nearly every setting, reaching 93.9% accuracy and working even when the database contains only one class.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the binary reformulation plus the single combined prompt. Formally, a label $C_j$ is also an expression of $\overline{C_i}$ for every $i\neq j$; the method exploits this by turning one $m$-class question into $m$ sub-questions, each supplied with demonstrations relabeled from the original database into $\{C_j, \overline{C_j}\}$. For $j\le w$, both sides appear in the database; for $j>w$, the database contains only $\overline{C_j}$ examples, yet the sub-question still has valid demonstrations. The paper claims this converts IICL into standard VICL. All $m$ sub-questions and their demonstrations are packed into one prompt, so the model is queried once in the first stage; the second stage uses the first stage's answer pattern to decide between direct assignment, full re-classification, or a restricted $u$-class re-classification.

What would settle it

Run IJIP with a retrieval database that omits one class, then feed it only test images from the missing class and record the binary "Is this C_j?" answer for that class: if the positive rate is around chance, negative-only demonstrations are not doing the work and the gains must come from the second-stage fallbacks.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that incomplete in-context learning can be repaired by changing the question format rather than by fixing the data. The paper's empirical study shows that IICL accuracy drops steadily as labels disappear from the retrieval database, and IJIP is designed to reverse that drop. In the Iterative Judgments Stage, one prompt asks the LVLM m binary questions about the same image, each with its own retrieved demonstrations whose labels have been converted to positive/negative for that class. For any class absent from the database, the available images from other classes still provide "not this class" demonstrations, so every binary task has both sides of the decision represented—at least negative evidence—and the problem becomes a complete VICL task. The Integrated Prediction Stage then decides the final label: if exactly one binary answer is positive, that label wins; if none are positive, a full m-class VICL inference is run; if several are positive, a smaller classification among only those candidates is run. The paper claims this yields the highest accuracy among six baselines under 10%, 40%, and 90% label missingness, that it holds even when all labels are present, and that it transfers to prompt learning and to text classification.

Load-bearing premise

The method banks on a vision-language model being able to say "yes, this is class C_j" in a binary question even when every retrieved demonstration shows "not C_j." If a model cannot transfer from purely negative demonstrations to a positive detection, the core advantage of IJIP for missing labels is lost.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • IJIP is plug-and-play: it can be layered on any VICL retrieval method, so existing systems can adopt the two-stage prompting without retraining or changing the database.
  • Because IJIP also beats all six baselines when no labels are missing, the decomposition itself—not just the missing-label fix—appears to help; this suggests the method is a general prompt-engineering improvement, not only a repair for incomplete data.
  • The extension to prompt learning (average +4.8%) and to text classification (SOTA on SST5 and Emotion) indicates the same binary-reformulation trick works when retrieval and prompting are done differently or in another modality.
  • The accuracy gain grows with LVLM size (up to 98.3% with the 26B model), so the benefit of the method scales with model capability rather than vanishing as the base model improves.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A testable generalization: IJIP suggests that any incomplete-label problem—class-incremental learning, extreme class imbalance, positive-unlabeled data—can be reduced to a set of binary tasks in which missing classes are represented only by negatives; the paper does not run these experiments.
  • The single-prompt design means the cost of asking m binary questions is close to the cost of one m-class question, so the approach could scale to very large label sets; the paper itself tests at most 24 classes (Wiki-Art Genre), leaving open whether long prompt contexts degrade the binary judgments.
  • If negative-only demonstrations are truly sufficient, then the model is doing something like implicit negative evidence: it learns "not this" from examples of other classes. A per-class binary accuracy breakdown would reveal whether missing classes are the weak point, which the paper does not report.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces the concept of Incomplete In-context Learning (IICL), where a vision-language model performs in-context learning with a retrieval database that lacks annotated examples for some classes. The authors propose IJIP, a two-stage framework: an Iterative Judgment Stage that reformulates the m-class problem into m binary sub-tasks (asking 'Is this C_j?' for each class), and an Integrated Prediction Stage that combines the binary predictions with a final multi-class in-context classification. The paper reports consistent accuracy gains over six VICL baselines across CIFAR-10 and Fashion-MNIST with InternVL 2.5-4B and 2.5-8B, at three label-missingness levels, and additionally applies IJIP to prompt learning and text classification. The central theoretical claim is that the binary decomposition converts IICL into a standard VICL scenario because each binary sub-task has demonstrations in at least one of its two classes.

Significance. The problem studied is well motivated and practically relevant: retrieval databases in dynamic settings are often incomplete, and existing VICL methods assume complete label coverage. IJIP is simple, training-free, and the empirical evaluation is broad for a short paper: two models, two visual datasets, three missingness levels, plus extensions to text and prompt learning. The main results are reproducible in the sense that accuracy numbers are reported for every condition and averaged over three runs, and the method contains no fitted parameters beyond the demonstration count k. The consistent gains over baselines, including the complete-database case, make the empirical contribution potentially useful. However, the paper's headline theoretical claim—that IICL is 'converted into a standard VICL scenario'—is not valid for the missing-label classes, because the binary sub-task for such a class contains only negative demonstrations. The contribution is therefore empirical rather than theoretical, and the theoretical framing must be revised to match the evidence.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3 and Section 4.1.1] The claim that the binary decomposition 'ensures a complete VICL process' is false for the classes that are missing from the retrieval database. Under the definition in Eq. (1), D_in contains only labels in {C_1,...,C_w}, so for any j > w the j-th binary demonstration set D^j_IJ in Eq. (4) contains only labels of the form non-C_j (i.e., C_j-bar). There is no positive example of C_j in the retrieved demonstrations. The statement in Section 3 that 'if j > w, at least C_j examples are available' is correct only if the overline is read as the negative class, and Section 4.1.1's assertion that 'the retrieval database always contains at least one instance of C_j' is contradicted by Eq. (1). A binary classification task with only negative demonstrations is not a standard complete VICL task; positive identification of C_j must come from the model's parametric prior, not from in-context demonstrations. This is load-bearing because the abstract and Section 3 use the 'complete VICL' argument to motivate IJIP. The authors should either weaken the claim to state that the binary sub-task always has demonstrations in at least one class, or add an experiment that directly tests whether negative-only demonstrations contribute to positive detection over a zero-shot control.
  2. [Section 5.2 and Table 2] The empirical results do not currently isolate the mechanism that the paper claims is responsible for the gains. For CIFAR-10 with InternVL 2.5-8B at 90% missing labels, IJIP achieves 89.2% while zero-shot prompting achieves 86.7%; the 2.5-point gap is small relative to the model's strong parametric prior on common classes like CIFAR-10. The paper does not report an ablation in which, for an available class, the positive demonstrations are withheld from the binary sub-task and the result is compared with the full-demonstration setting. Without such a control, the observed gains cannot be attributed to the proposed 'completion' of the retrieval database rather than to the model's prior knowledge or to the extra inference-time processing. This matters because the central claim of the paper is that IJIP mitigates the incomplete-database problem through the binary decomposition; a direct test of the negative-only demonstration regime is needed to support that claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3, Eq. (6)] Assumption 3.1 uses the norm \|\hat{y}_x - y_x\|_p to measure the difference between predicted and true labels, but class labels are categorical and no embedding into a normed space is specified. Please replace this with a well-defined error measure, such as 0-1 loss, or define an explicit label encoding.
  2. [Equation (4)] The index range in the definition of D^j_IJ is written as '0 \leq j \leq m'; it should be '1 \leq j \leq m' because the sub-tasks are indexed by the class labels.
  3. [Section 4.1.1] The 'Reduction in Classification Complexity' paragraph asserts that binary tasks are 'inherently less complex' than an m-class task, but no complexity measure is defined and no evidence is provided. I recommend removing or substantiating this claim.
  4. [Section 5.2] The text refers to 'Table 6' in the first paragraph of Section 5.2, but the main results appear in Table 2. Please reconcile the table numbering throughout the manuscript.
  5. [Throughout] The overline notation for the negative class (non-C_j) is lost in the plain-text version, making the key argument in Section 3 difficult to follow. Please ensure the final typeset version renders \bar{C}_j consistently and define it explicitly at first use.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: IJIP's binary decomposition is an explicit algorithmic reformulation, not a fitted result or a self-citation-derived conclusion.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is the claim that an m-class classification problem can be reformulated into m binary classification tasks, so that an incomplete retrieval database yields at least negative demonstrations for every class. This is presented explicitly as an assumption about LVLM capability (Assumption 3.1) rather than as a result derived from the method's own outputs. The negative-only demonstration argument for missing labels is an unsupported empirical feasibility claim, not a circular reduction: no equation defines the method's success in terms of the retrieval database, and no fitted parameter is later renamed as a prediction. All reported accuracies are measured experimental outcomes. The paper contains no load-bearing author self-citations; references to KATE, VICL-rerank, and other baselines are external methods used for retrieval or comparison. The concern that a model may not transfer from purely negative demonstrations to positive identification is a substantive correctness risk, but it is not a form of circularity under the stated criteria.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that binary per-label questions can be answered reliably even when only negative demonstrations exist for missing classes, and that CLIP retrieval provides useful demonstrations. The only user-set number is the demonstration count k.

free parameters (1)
  • demonstration count k = 10 for main results; swept 1 to 15 in analysis
    IJIP's accuracy changes with k (Figure 4), and k is set by hand rather than derived. The main comparison uses k=10.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Assumption 3.1: LVLMs can approximate the true label y_x of input x through m binary classifications, with ||hat_y_x - y_x||_p <= epsilon.
    Stated in Section 3 as the formal justification for the decomposition; the p-norm over categorical labels is ill-defined, and no proof is given.
  • domain assumption For j > w (missing label), the presence of only non-C_j demonstrations is sufficient for the LVLM to make a reliable binary decision on C_j.
    Used in Sections 3 and 4.1.1 to support the claim that no class is entirely absent and IICL becomes complete VICL. This is the weakest load-bearing premise.
  • domain assumption CLIP cosine-similarity retrieval selects demonstrations that improve LVLM binary judgments.
    Equations 7-9 in Section 4.1 assume that the top-k CLIP-similar images are useful demonstrations; this is inherited from prior VICL methods and not revalidated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Incomplete In-context Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UXMG2TDB

@misc{pith2026250507251,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Incomplete In-context Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UXMG2TDB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.07251}
}
abstract

Large vision language models (LVLMs) achieve remarkable performance through Vision In-context Learning (VICL), a process that depends significantly on demonstrations retrieved from an extensive collection of annotated examples (retrieval database). Existing studies often assume that the retrieval database contains annotated examples for all labels. However, in real-world scenarios, delays in database updates or incomplete data annotation may result in the retrieval database containing labeled samples for only a subset of classes. We refer to this phenomenon as an \textbf{incomplete retrieval database} and define the in-context learning under this condition as \textbf{Incomplete In-context Learning (IICL)}. To address this challenge, we propose \textbf{Iterative Judgments and Integrated Prediction (IJIP)}, a two-stage framework designed to mitigate the limitations of IICL. The Iterative Judgments Stage reformulates an \(\boldsymbol{m}\)-class classification problem into a series of \(\boldsymbol{m}\) binary classification tasks, effectively converting the IICL setting into a standard VICL scenario. The Integrated Prediction Stage further refines the classification process by leveraging both the input image and the predictions from the Iterative Judgments Stage to enhance overall classification accuracy. IJIP demonstrates considerable performance across two LVLMs and two datasets under three distinct conditions of label incompleteness, achieving the highest accuracy of 93.9\%. Notably, even in scenarios where labels are fully available, IJIP still achieves the best performance of all six baselines. Furthermore, IJIP can be directly applied to \textbf{Prompt Learning} and is adaptable to the \textbf{text domain}.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.07251 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The overview of incomplete retrieval database, IICL, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. IJIP utilizes the CLIP model to vectorize images and retrieves the top [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Subfigure (a) shows the empirical study of IICL with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The accuracies(%)↑ of different demonstration numbers. Each experiment is conducted three times, and the average result is reported. using the InternVL 2.5-4B model. Different LVLMs’ sizes. We utilize four Intern VL2.5 models (2B, 4B, 8B, and 26B), where model size ser…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The effectiveness of IJIP in improving zero-shot prompt [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Category-based and Popularity-guided Video Game Recommendation: A Balance-oriented Framework

    cs.IR 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    CPGRec is a graph-based recommender that uses strict cross-category game connections, popularity-guided message passing, and negative-sample score reweighting to improve both accuracy and diversity on the Steam dataset.

  2. CPGRec+: A Balance-oriented Framework for Personalized Video Game Recommendations

    cs.IR 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    CPGRec+ improves game recommendations on Steam data by reweighting player-game edges with signed preference strengths and using LLMs to generate preference-aware descriptions, yielding higher accuracy and diversity th...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Cifar-10: Knn-based ensemble of classifiers

    Yehya Abouelnaga, Ola S Ali, Hager Rady, and Mohamed Moustafa. Cifar-10: Knn-based ensemble of classifiers. In 2016 International Conference on Computational Science and Computational Intelligence (CSCI), pages 1192–1195. IEEE, 2016

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    Handling extreme class imbal- ance in technical logbook datasets

    Farhad Akhbardeh, Cecilia Ovesdotter Alm, Marcos Zampieri, and Travis Desell. Handling extreme class imbal- ance in technical logbook datasets. InProceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguis- tics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 4034– 4045, 2021

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Why label when you can search? alternatives to active learning for applying human resources to build classification models under extreme class imbalance

    Josh Attenberg and Foster Provost. Why label when you can search? alternatives to active learning for applying human resources to build classification models under extreme class imbalance. InProceedings of the 16th ACM SIGKDD interna- tional conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, pages 423–432, 2010

    work page 2010

  4. [4]

    Language models are few-shot learners.Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877–1901, 2020

    Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Sub- biah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. Language models are few-shot learners.Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877–1901, 2020

    work page 1901

  5. [5]

    Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Sub- biah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agar- wal, Ariel Herbert-V oss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz L...

    work page 1901

  6. [6]

    Class incremental learning for image classification with out- of-distribution task identification.IEEE Transactions on Mul- timedia, 2025

    Xusheng Cao, Haori Lu, Xialei Liu, and Ming-Ming Cheng. Class incremental learning for image classification with out- of-distribution task identification.IEEE Transactions on Mul- timedia, 2025

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    Expanding performance boundaries of open-source multimodal models with model, data, and test-time scaling.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.05271, 2024

    Zhe Chen, Weiyun Wang, Yue Cao, Yangzhou Liu, Zhang- wei Gao, Erfei Cui, Jinguo Zhu, Shenglong Ye, Hao Tian, Zhaoyang Liu, et al. Expanding performance boundaries of open-source multimodal models with model, data, and test-time scaling.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.05271, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Internvl: Scaling up vision foundation models and aligning for generic visual-linguistic tasks

    Zhe Chen, Jiannan Wu, Wenhai Wang, Weijie Su, Guo Chen, Sen Xing, Muyan Zhong, Qinglong Zhang, Xizhou Zhu, Lewei Lu, et al. Internvl: Scaling up vision foundation models and aligning for generic visual-linguistic tasks. InProceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 24185–24198, 2024

    2024

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    Explor- ing the robustness of in-context learning with noisy labels

    Chen Cheng, Xinzhi Yu, Haodong Wen, Jinsong Sun, Guanzhang Yue, Yihao Zhang, and Zeming Wei. Explor- ing the robustness of in-context learning with noisy labels. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.18191, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Meta-in-context learning in large language models.Advances in Neural Infor- mation Processing Systems, 36:65189–65201, 2023

    Julian Coda-Forno, Marcel Binz, Zeynep Akata, Matt Botvinick, Jane Wang, and Eric Schulz. Meta-in-context learning in large language models.Advances in Neural Infor- mation Processing Systems, 36:65189–65201, 2023

    2023

  3. [11]

    An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale

    Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Syl- vain Gelly, Jakob Uszkoreit, and Neil Houlsby. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition ...

    2021

  4. [12]

    Mit- igating label biases for in-context learning

    Yu Fei, Yifan Hou, Zeming Chen, and Antoine Bosselut. Mit- igating label biases for in-context learning. InProceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 14014–14031, 2023

    2023

  5. [13]

    Complexity-based prompting for multi-step reasoning

    Yao Fu, Hao Peng, Ashish Sabharwal, Peter Clark, and Tushar Khot. Complexity-based prompting for multi-step reasoning. InThe Eleventh International Conference on Learning Rep- resentations, ICLR 2023, Kigali, Rwanda, May 1-5, 2023. OpenReview.net, 2023

    2023

  6. [14]

    Demystifying prompts in language models via perplexity estimation

    Hila Gonen, Srini Iyer, Terra Blevins, Noah Smith, and Luke Zettlemoyer. Demystifying prompts in language models via perplexity estimation. InProceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 10136–10148, 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    How robust are llms to in- context majority label bias?arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.16549, 2023

    Karan Gupta, Sumegh Roychowdhury, Siva Rajesh Kasa, Santhosh Kumar Kasa, Anish Bhanushali, Nikhil Pattisapu, and Prasanna Srinivasa Murthy. How robust are llms to in- context majority label bias?arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.16549, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Coverage- based example selection for in-context learning

    Shivanshu Gupta, Matt Gardner, and Sameer Singh. Coverage- based example selection for in-context learning. InProceed- ings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 13924–13950, 2023

    2023

  9. [17]

    In-context learning learns label relationships but is not conventional learning

    Jannik Kossen, Yarin Gal, and Tom Rainforth. In-context learning learns label relationships but is not conventional learning. InInternational Conference on Learning Represen- tations, 2024

    2024

  10. [18]

    Learning multiple layers of features from tiny images

    Alex Krizhevsky, Geoffrey Hinton, et al. Learning multiple layers of features from tiny images. 2009

    2009

  11. [19]

    Prompt-based concept learning for few-shot class-incremental learning.IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 2025

    Shuo Li, Fang Liu, Licheng Jiac, Lingling Li, Puhua Chen, Xu Liu, and Wenping Ma. Prompt-based concept learning for few-shot class-incremental learning.IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 2025

    2025

  12. [20]

    Finding support examples for in- context learning

    Xiaonan Li and Xipeng Qiu. Finding support examples for in- context learning. InProceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 6219–6235, 2023

    2023

  13. [21]

    Mot: Pre-thinking and recall- ing enable chatgpt to self-improve with memory-of-thoughts

    Xiaonan Li and Xipeng Qiu. Mot: Pre-thinking and recall- ing enable chatgpt to self-improve with memory-of-thoughts. CoRR, 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    Jiachang Liu, Dinghan Shen, Yizhe Zhang, William B Dolan, Lawrence Carin, and Weizhu Chen. What makes good in- context examples for gpt-3? InProceedings of Deep Learning Inside Out (DeeLIO 2022): The 3rd Workshop on Knowledge Extraction and Integration for Deep Learning Archit...

    2022

  15. [23]

    Class incremental learning with self-supervised pre-training and prototype learning.Pattern Recognition, 157:110943, 2025

    Wenzhuo Liu, Xin-Jian Wu, Fei Zhu, Ming-Ming Yu, Chuang Wang, and Cheng-Lin Liu. Class incremental learning with self-supervised pre-training and prototype learning.Pattern Recognition, 157:110943, 2025

    2025

  16. [24]

    Decomposing label space, format and discrimination: Re- thinking how llms respond and solve tasks via in-context learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.07546, 2024

    Quanyu Long, Yin Wu, Wenya Wang, and Sinno Jialin Pan. Decomposing label space, format and discrimination: Re- thinking how llms respond and solve tasks via in-context learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.07546, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Fantastically ordered prompts and where to find them: Overcoming few-shot prompt order sensitivity

    Yao Lu, Max Bartolo, Alastair Moore, Sebastian Riedel, and Pontus Stenetorp. Fantastically ordered prompts and where to find them: Overcoming few-shot prompt order sensitivity. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1...

    2022

  18. [26]

    Z-ICL: Zero-shot in-context learning with pseudo-demonstrations

    Xinxi Lyu, Sewon Min, Iz Beltagy, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. Z-ICL: Zero-shot in-context learning with pseudo-demonstrations. InProceedings of the 61st An- nual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguis- tics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2304–2317, 2023

    2023

  19. [27]

    Which examples to annotate for in-context learning? towards effective and efficient selection.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.20046, 2023

    Costas Mavromatis, Balasubramaniam Srinivasan, Zhengyuan Shen, Jiani Zhang, Huzefa Rangwala, Christos Faloutsos, and George Karypis. Which examples to annotate for in-context learning? towards effective and efficient selection.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.20046, 2023

    arXiv

  20. [28]

    In- context learning for text classification with many labels

    Aristides Milios, Siva Reddy, and Dzmitry Bahdanau. In- context learning for text classification with many labels. In Proceedings of the 1st GenBench Workshop on (Benchmark- ing) Generalisation in NLP, pages 173–184, 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    MetaICL: Learning to learn in context

    Sewon Min, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. MetaICL: Learning to learn in context. InProceed- ings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 2791–2809, 2022

    2022

  22. [30]

    Sewon Min, Xinxi Lyu, Ari Holtzman, Mikel Artetxe, Mike Lewis, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Luke Zettlemoyer. Re- thinking the role of demonstrations: What makes in-context learning work? InProceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pag...

    2022

  23. [31]

    Diversity of thought improves reasoning abilities of large language models

    Ranjita Naik, Varun Chandrasekaran, Mert Yuksekgonul, Hamid Palangi, and Besmira Nushi. Diversity of thought improves reasoning abilities of large language models. 2023

    2023

  24. [32]

    Improving language understanding by gener- ative pre-training

    Alec Radford, Karthik Narasimhan, Tim Salimans, Ilya Sutskever, et al. Improving language understanding by gener- ative pre-training. 2018

    2018

  25. [33]

    Language models are unsuper- vised multitask learners.OpenAI blog, 1(8):9, 2019

    Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, Ilya Sutskever, et al. Language models are unsuper- vised multitask learners.OpenAI blog, 1(8):9, 2019

    2019

  26. [34]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision

    Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, Gretchen Krueger, and Ilya Sutskever. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. InProceedings of the...

    2021

  27. [35]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervi- sion

    Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, et al. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervi- sion. InInternational conference on machine learning, p...

    2021

  28. [36]

    Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer.J. Mach. Learn. Res., 21: 140:1–140:67, 2020

    2020

  29. [37]

    Large-scale classification of fine-art paintings: Learning the right metric on the right feature.arXiv preprint arXiv:1505.00855, 2015

    Babak Saleh and Ahmed Elgammal. Large-scale classification of fine-art paintings: Learning the right metric on the right feature.arXiv preprint arXiv:1505.00855, 2015

    2015 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Label words are anchors: An information flow perspective for understanding in-context learning

    Lean Wang, Lei Li, Damai Dai, Deli Chen, Hao Zhou, Fan- dong Meng, Jie Zhou, and Xu Sun. Label words are anchors: An information flow perspective for understanding in-context learning. InProceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pa...

    2023

  31. [39]

    Large language models are latent variable models: Explaining and finding good demonstrations for in-context learning

    Xinyi Wang, Wanrong Zhu, Michael Saxon, Mark Steyvers, and William Yang Wang. Large language models are latent variable models: Explaining and finding good demonstrations for in-context learning. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 15614–15638, 2023

    2023

  32. [40]

    Chi, Tatsunori Hashimoto, Oriol Vinyals, Percy Liang, Jeff Dean, and William Fedus

    Jason Wei, Yi Tay, Rishi Bommasani, Colin Raffel, Bar- ret Zoph, Sebastian Borgeaud, Dani Yogatama, Maarten Bosma, Denny Zhou, Donald Metzler, Ed H. Chi, Tatsunori Hashimoto, Oriol Vinyals, Percy Liang, Jeff Dean, and William Fedus. Emergent abilities of large language models....

    2022

  33. [41]

    Chi, Quoc V

    Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Brian Ichter, Fei Xia, Ed H. Chi, Quoc V . Le, and Denny Zhou. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. 2022

    2022

  34. [42]

    Symbol tuning improves in- context learning in language models

    Jerry Wei, Le Hou, Andrew Kyle Lampinen, Xiangning Chen, Da Huang, Yi Tay, Xinyun Chen, Yifeng Lu, Denny Zhou, Tengyu Ma, and Quoc V Le. Symbol tuning improves in- context learning in language models. InProceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Languag...

    2023

  35. [43]

    Larger language models do in-context learning differently.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.03846, 2023

    Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Yi Tay, Dustin Tran, Albert Webson, Yifeng Lu, Xinyun Chen, Hanxiao Liu, Da Huang, Denny Zhou, et al. Larger language models do in-context learning differently.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.03846, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Self-adaptive in-context learning: An information compression perspective for in-context example selection and ordering

    Zhiyong Wu, Yaoxiang Wang, Jiacheng Ye, and Lingpeng Kong. Self-adaptive in-context learning: An information compression perspective for in-context example selection and ordering. InProceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume...

    2023

  37. [45]

    Fashion-mnist: a novel image dataset for benchmarking machine learning algorithms.arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.07747, 2017

    Han Xiao, Kashif Rasul, and Roland V ollgraf. Fashion-mnist: a novel image dataset for benchmarking machine learning algorithms.arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.07747, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Few-shot class-incremental learning for classifi- cation and object detection: A survey.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 2025

    Jinghua Zhang, Li Liu, Olli Silv ´en, Matti Pietik ¨ainen, and Dewen Hu. Few-shot class-incremental learning for classifi- cation and object detection: A survey.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 2025

    2025

  39. [47]

    Towards robust ranker for text retrieval

    Yucheng Zhou, Tao Shen, Xiubo Geng, Chongyang Tao, Can Xu, Guodong Long, Binxing Jiao, and Daxin Jiang. Towards robust ranker for text retrieval. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, Toronto, Canada, July 9-14, 2023, pages 5387–5401. Associati...

    2023

  40. [48]

    Visual in-context learning for large vision-language models

    Yucheng Zhou, Xiang Li, Qianning Wang, and Jianbing Shen. Visual in-context learning for large vision-language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.11574, 2024. Incomplete In-context Learning Supplementary Material A. Related Work In-context learning and visual In-context learnin...

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.