Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 38 references

Eliciting Fine-Tuned Transformer Capabilities via Inference-Time Techniques

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that any capability acquired by supervised fine-tuning can be approximated by prompting a base transformer with enough input-output examples, within a total variation error that shrinks as $O(1/\sqrt{N})$ for typical…

desk verdict The paper's central theorem is assumed rather than proved: ICL's error eta is never bounded, and the sample-complexity bounds contain a union-bound error, so the main claim collapses. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.08060 v1 pith:OWGOQSH7 submitted 2025-06-09 cs.LG cs.AI

Asankhaya Sharma This is my paper
classification cs.LGcs.AI
keywords in-contextlearningsupervisedfine-tuningTuringcompletenesstotalvariationdistancesamplecomplexitytextgenerationlinearclassificationretrieval-augmented
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

Supervised fine-tuning adapts a pretrained transformer to a task by updating its parameters, and that is expensive. This paper tries to establish that the same capabilities can be elicited from the unmodified base model: an inference-time technique, specifically in-context learning, that concatenates input-output examples from the fine-tuning dataset with the query can approximate the fine-tuned model's output distribution within total variation distance $\epsilon$, with $\epsilon = O(1/\sqrt{N})$ for typical tasks. The paper also bounds the number of examples needed: $O\left(\frac{mV}{\epsilon^2} \log \frac{m}{\delta}\right)$ for text generation across $m$ contexts, and $O\left(\frac{d}{\epsilon}\right)$ for linear classification, with versions for bounded context length. A sympathetic reader would care because if the theorem is right, much of SFT's value could be delivered by prompting with a small dataset, avoiding GPU-heavy retraining. The proof rests on the Turing completeness of unbounded transformers and on modeling in-context learning as Bayesian inference.

What carries the argument

The object that carries the argument is the prompt $T_{\mathrm{SFT}}$: a concatenation $x_1 y_1 [\mathrm{SEP}] \dots x_N y_N [\mathrm{SEP}] x$, built from the fine-tuning dataset and the query. It does two jobs. By Turing completeness, the base transformer can in principle simulate the computable function defined by the fine-tuned model, using self-attention as the simulated tape and feed-forward layers as transition rules; and by the Bayesian-inference account of in-context learning, the same prompt lets the base model approximate the task distribution $P_{\mathrm{fine}}(y|x)$. The sample-size bounds come from standard concentration arguments, specifically Hoeffding's inequality for empirical next-token distributions, and from coreset theory for linear classifiers.

What would settle it

Measure the total variation distance between a fine-tuned model and its base model prompted with $N$ examples on a task that requires memorized factual knowledge not contained in the examples; if the distance does not shrink along the $O(1/\sqrt{N})$ curve as $N$ grows, or fails to reach $\epsilon$ within the theorem's stated dataset sizes, the central claim is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is Theorem 1: for any fine-tuned model $M_{\mathrm{fine}}$ obtained from $M_{\mathrm{base}}$ by supervised fine-tuning, and for any $\epsilon > 0$, there exists an inference technique $T$ and a dataset size $N$ such that $\mathrm{TV}(P_{\mathrm{base}}(y|x,T), P_{\mathrm{fine}}(y|x)) \le \epsilon$ for all inputs $x$ and outputs $y$. The proof constructs $T_{\mathrm{SFT}}$ as a prompt containing input-output pairs from the fine-tuning dataset followed by the query $x$. It then argues that the fine-tuned function is computable, that the unbounded base transformer can simulate any computable function because transformers are Turing complete, and that in-context learning approximates the task distribution. The concrete dataset-size theorems are text generation with $O\left(\frac{mV}{\epsilon^2} \log \frac{m}{\delta}\right)$ examples, and with bounded context and output length $l$, $O\left(\frac{l \log V}{\epsilon^2} \log \frac{1}{\delta}\right)$; linear classification with $O\left(\frac{d}{\epsilon}\right)$ examples, and with bounded context, $O\left(\frac{1}{\epsilon^2} \log \frac{1}{\delta}\right)$. In all cases the paper includes an additional in-context learning error $\eta$ that it does not quantify.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a base transformer prompted with a finite list of input-output examples can infer the same input-output mapping that supervised fine-tuning produced; the examples alone must identify the function, since a Turing-machine simulation would require the full transition table, which the prompt does not provide.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Fine-tuning can be replaced, in principle, by prompting with a finite example set: the fine-tuned output distribution is reproducible from the base model within $\epsilon$.
  • For fixed-context text generation, $O\left(\frac{l \log V}{\epsilon^2} \log \frac{1}{\delta}\right)$ well-chosen examples are enough, which is the regime where retrieval-augmented generation operates; the paper treats retrieval as the practical bridge.
  • For linear classification, $O\left(\frac{d}{\epsilon}\right)$ examples suffice, so classifier fine-tuning is the cheapest capability to elicit at inference time.
  • Since $\epsilon = O(1/\sqrt{N})$, gathering more examples strictly improves the approximation, giving a concrete accuracy-versus-prompt-size tradeoff.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the theorem is right, the practical bottleneck shifts from parameter updates to example selection: the bounds assume the prompt examples actually identify the fine-tuned function, so retrieval quality becomes the main engineering variable.
  • The same reasoning, extended, would predict that any capability expressible as a computable function can be elicited by a prompt containing a sufficient demonstration set, making inference-time compute a partial substitute for training compute, up to the unquantified in-context learning error.
  • A testable extension is to measure the in-context learning error empirically on standardized tasks by comparing prompted base models with fine-tuned models under increasing $N$ and checking whether the total variation distance decays as $1/\sqrt{N}$; the paper calls for such validation but does not run it.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper claims to prove that any capability acquired by a base transformer through supervised fine-tuning can be reproduced at inference time by prompting the base model with a finite set of input–output examples, with total variation error ε, and with explicit sample-complexity bounds for text generation and linear classification. The proof strategy is to show that f_fine is computable (Lemma 1), invoke Turing completeness of transformers (Lemma 2), and then assert that in-context learning on a finite prompt approximates P_fine (Lemma 3, via Proposition 1). Finite-sample bounds are then derived for text generation and linear classification, both with unbounded and bounded context. The paper also discusses practical techniques such as RAG and few-shot prompting and lists limitations.

Significance. The question addressed is timely and important: a formal guarantee that in-context learning can replace supervised fine-tuning would have substantial practical implications for model deployment. The paper is clearly structured, distinguishes unbounded and bounded context settings, and is explicit about its idealizing assumptions and limitations. However, the central theorem is not established: the key step is an assertion that ICL infers the fine-tuned mapping, the ICL error η is never controlled, and at least two sample-complexity derivations contain algebraic errors. The manuscript therefore does not currently constitute a proof of its main claim; at best it is a formalization of a plausible hypothesis. I also note that no machine-checked proofs, code, or experiments are provided that would compensate for the analytical gaps.

major comments (5)
  1. [§5.3 (Proposition 1), §5.7 (Corollary 1)] The central step is Proposition 1, which states that ICL enables M_base to model P_fine from a finite prompt, but its proof is only the assertion that "ICL acts as Bayesian inference" and "infers the mapping implied by P_fine." Lemma 2 (Turing completeness) does not fill this gap, because simulating a Turing machine requires the program or transition table, whereas the prompt in Lemma 3 contains only N input-output pairs. For any fixed finite prompt D there exist two computable functions f1 and f2 that agree on D but differ on a query x, so no inference technique using only D can approximate both P_fine distributions; thus the universal "any fine-tuned model" claim is unsupported unless T is allowed to encode f_fine's program. Corollary 1 and Theorem 1 inherit this gap.
  2. [§5.5 (Theorems 2–5), Eq. (8)] Every finite-sample guarantee is stated as ε+η, and in each theorem η is introduced by an assumption rather than bounded by a theorem: Theorem 3 assumes M_base approximates linear classifiers within ε/2+η, Theorem 4 assumes approximation within O(1/√k)+η, and Theorem 2 assumes M_base approximates the empirical distribution within η. Section 6.5 explicitly concedes that η "may require larger datasets than predicted." Consequently, the established bounds do not imply TV ≤ ε in Theorem 1, or even a meaningful quantitative guarantee, because η is not controlled by N or by any resource parameter.
  3. [§5.6.2 (Theorem 5)] The sample-complexity bound for fixed-context text generation is not derived. The proof reduces the problem to |V|^l binary decisions and invokes a union bound. A union bound over |V|^l events with failure probability δ requires per-event failure δ/|V|^l, giving a log(|V|^l/δ) = l log V + log(1/δ) term; it does not give O((l log V/ε^2) log(1/δ)), and the equality in the proof that drops log(|V|^l/δ) is algebraically false. Moreover, if |V|^l is treated as the number of categories, a per-category TV error of ε/|V|^l would be needed for an L1 bound, which would introduce a |V|^l or |V|^{2l} factor rather than l log V.
  4. [§5.5.1 (Theorem 2) and §A.2] Theorem 2 states |D'| = O(mV/ε^2 log(m/δ)), but the derivation in Section A.2 reaches n_i ≥ |V|^2/(2ε^2) ln(2|V|/δ_i) after a union bound over |V| tokens, and then incorrectly writes this as O(V/ε^2 log(m/δ)), dropping a factor of |V|. The bound in the theorem is therefore not supported by the proof as written. Even if a tighter L1 concentration argument were intended, the proof is internally inconsistent.
  5. [§5.6.1 (Theorem 4)] The uniform-over-x claim is not justified. The proof selects a subset S_x of size k for each query x and asserts the error bound "with probability at least 1-δ"; this is a pointwise statement in x, and no covering, VC-dimension, or union-bound argument shows that the same probability holds simultaneously for all x ∈ R^d. In addition, the local classifier error O(1/√k) is asserted to follow from similarity-based selection, and the assumption that M_base approximates the classifier trained on S_x within O(1/√k)+η is essentially the theorem's conclusion restated. The theorem as stated is an assumption, not a proved result.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§5.4] The claim that a random subset D' gives TV error O(1/√|D'|) by Hoeffding's inequality omits the standard dependence on the alphabet size for L1 deviation of multinomial distributions; as written the bound can be too optimistic for large V.
  2. [§5.3, Figure 3] The prompt format uses [SEP] tokens, but Lemma 3's proof does not formalize their role; since Theorem 1 concerns arbitrary token sequences, the use of a special separator should be stated as part of the inference technique or avoided.
  3. [§5.7 (Corollary 1)] The phrase "any SFT capability" is not formalized; the earlier lemmas concern functions f_fine or distributions P_fine, but the corollary switches to "capability" without defining the class of tasks to which Theorems 2–5 apply.
  4. [Theorem 1] The statement "for any ε>0 there exists a dataset size N such that ... ε=O(1/√N)" conflates a guarantee for a fixed N with an asymptotic rate; the proof does not construct N(ε) in the unbounded case, and the subsequent theorems only give N for the ε+η error.
  5. [References] Several references are incomplete or non-standard: [7] is a blog post with no author, [25] appears to be a placeholder arXiv identifier, and some self-citations ([20], [22], [24]) are not clearly related to the technical claims.

Circularity Check

6 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

The central theorem assumes, in Proposition 1 and in every theorem's ICL-error term, precisely the capability it claims to prove: that prompting a base model with a finite dataset reproduces the fine-tuned distribution.

  1. ansatz smuggled in via citation [Section 5.3, Proposition 1 and its proof]
    "Since D defines the task, M_base infers the mapping implied by P_fine by generalizing from examples [32]."

    Proposition 1 is the load-bearing step that supplies the central approximation: ICL with dataset D reproduces P_fine. Its proof does not derive this; it asserts it, citing [32] for the key generalization step. Lemma 2's Turing completeness only lets M_base simulate a machine when its program or transition table is provided, whereas the prompt contains only N input-output pairs, not the program for f_fine. Moreover, two computable fine-tuned functions can agree on every pair in D yet disagree on a query x, so no inference technique using only D can be close to both. The premise of the entire proof chain therefore already contains the theorem's conclusion.

  2. ansatz smuggled in via citation [Section 5.3, Lemma 3 proof]
    "For typical tasks, ICL’s sample complexity suggests ε=O(1/√N)[9], with faster decay (e.g., O(1/N)) possible for simpler tasks under uniform data distributions."

    Lemma 3 is where Theorem 1's quantitative guarantee ε=O(1/√N) is supposed to be established, but the proof simply says the rate is 'suggested' by [9], without derivation. Reference [9] is an explanatory Bayesian-inference account of ICL, not a sample-complexity theorem covering arbitrary fine-tuned functions. The rate is therefore imported from a citation rather than proven, and it is exactly the rate needed by the main theorem. The 'typical tasks' qualifier is never formalized, so the bound is effectively assumed.

4 more flagged steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 5.5.1, Theorem 2 proof]
    "Assuming M_base approximates ˆp(·|ci) within η, the total error is ε+η."

    The theorem's stated bound is sup_c ||p_base − p_fine||_1 ≤ ε+η. The dataset-size calculation |D'|=O(mV/ε^2 log m/δ) controls only the sampling error between the empirical distribution ˆp and p_fine. The step from ˆp to p_base's ICL output is assumed via η, and η is never bounded. Hence the theorem reduces to: if ICL already approximates the empirical distribution within η, then ICL approximates p_fine within ε+η. The capability the theorem claims to establish is exactly the assumption, dressed as a sample-complexity result.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 5.5.2, Theorem 3 statement and proof]
    "Assume M_base, prompted with D′, approximates the classifier with parameters (w′, b′) via ICL [9], such that |Pbase(y=1|x,D′)−σ(w′T x+b′)|≤ε/2+η"

    The theorem statement itself says 'assuming M_base approximates linear classifiers via ICL within error ε/2+η.' The proof then applies that assumption directly to bound the ICL term; the only derived part is the standard coreset bound on the distance between two logistic classifiers. Consequently the theorem's conclusion is the ICL approximation assumption plus a known sampling result. The paper's central claim—that prompting the base model recovers the fine-tuned linear classifier—is put in as an assumption, not proved.

  3. fitted input called prediction [Section 5.6.1, Theorem 4 proof]
    "Assume M_base approximates the classifier on S_x via ICL within: |Pbase(y=1|x,Sx)−σ(w′T x+b′)| ≤ O(1/√k)+η"

    Theorem 4 promises a fixed-context bound for linear classification, but the proof assumes that prompt-based ICL on S_x matches the locally trained classifier within O(1/√k)+η. The O(1/√k) rate is attributed to [16] and η is unspecified; neither is derived from the base model's architecture or the SFT procedure. The theorem therefore obtains its main error term from the very capability it is meant to prove, making the claimed sample-complexity bound conditional on an unproved ICL generalization bound.

  4. fitted input called prediction [Section 5.6.2, Theorem 5 proof]
    "This decomposes into: ICL approximation error: Bounded by O(1/√k)+η, where η accounts for model capacity and prompt design [9]."

    The text-generation bound is obtained by assuming ICL approximates the multi-label sequence distribution within O(1/√k)+η, which is the very capability at issue. In addition, the union bound over |V|^l sequences is applied incorrectly: it should incur log(|V|^l/δ) = l log V + log(1/δ), not log(1/δ), so the stated k=O(l log V/ε^2 log(1/δ)) does not follow even under the assumed ICL error.

full rationale

Score 8: the paper's central claim—that a base transformer prompted with a finite dataset D reproduces an arbitrary SFT model's output distribution—is assumed, not derived, at the load-bearing point Proposition 1 and again in each theorem's ICL-error assumption. Turing completeness (Lemma 2) only provides simulation when the program for f_fine is supplied; the prompt supplies only examples, and examples do not uniquely determine the target function. Theorems 2–5 all carry an unquantified η and explicitly assume the base model approximates the empirical or local classifier via ICL, after which the 'bounds' are just ε plus that assumed η. The final proof of Theorem 1 is 'By Corollary 1,' which reuses the same circular chain. There is no fitted parameter in the usual sense, but there is a free ICL error term that absorbs whatever is needed. This is not harmless self-citation: the external citations [9], [16], [32] are used to import the exact capability and rate that the paper claims to prove. A separate, non-circular error is the union bound in Theorem 5, which would require log |V|^l in the sample complexity. Because the central reduction is by assumption, score 8 rather than 10.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central claim rests on several idealizing assumptions and, most importantly, on the unproven assertion that a base transformer can recover an arbitrary fine-tuned mapping from a finite set of input-output examples. The error term eta is never bounded, so the stated bounds are conditional on an unquantified quantity. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • ICL approximation error eta = unspecified
    In Theorems 2 through 5 the total error is epsilon + eta, with eta asserted as the ICL approximation error and never bounded; all the weight of the claim rests on eta being small.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Unbounded computational resources and infinite context length (Assumption 1).
    Infinite context length and compute are assumed; used in Lemma 3 and Theorem 1.
  • domain assumption Transformers with unbounded resources are Turing complete (Assumption 2).
    Cited from [2]; used to assert M_base can simulate any computable function.
  • domain assumption Access to the fine-tuning dataset D (Assumption 3).
    Used to construct the prompt from full or partial D.
  • ad hoc to paper ICL infers the task mapping from examples (Proposition 1).
    Section 5.3 asserts this based on [9]; it is the key unproven capability that makes the proof work.
  • ad hoc to paper M_base approximates the empirical distribution or classifier within eta or eps/2+eta (Theorems 2, 3, 4).
    This directly assumes the target approximation that the paper aims to prove.
  • ad hoc to paper Similarity-selected subset S_x captures the linear decision boundary with O(1/sqrt(k)) error (Theorem 4).
    No proof is given that k nearest neighbors of a query within a dataset give uniform approximation of a global linear classifier.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Eliciting Fine-Tuned Transformer Capabilities via Inference-Time Techniques." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OWGOQSH7

@misc{pith2026250608060,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Eliciting Fine-Tuned Transformer Capabilities via Inference-Time Techniques},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OWGOQSH7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.08060}
}
abstract

Large language models have transformed natural language processing, yet supervised fine-tuning (SFT) remains computationally intensive. This paper formally proves that capabilities acquired through SFT can be approximated by a base transformer model using inference-time techniques, specifically in-context learning (ICL), without altering model parameters, under idealized assumptions including unbounded computational resources and access to the fine-tuning dataset. We extend these results to practical scenarios with finite context lengths and partial dataset access. For text generation tasks with fixed output length $l$, datasets of size $\mathrm{O}\left( \frac{m V}{\varepsilon^2} \log \frac{m}{\delta} \right)$ or, with bounded context, $\mathrm{O}\left( \frac{l \log V}{\varepsilon^2} \log \frac{1}{\delta} \right)$ suffice to approximate fine-tuned behavior across $m$ contexts within error $\varepsilon$, where $V$ is the vocabulary size and $\delta$ is the failure probability. For linear classification, datasets of size $\mathrm{O}\left( \frac{d}{\varepsilon} \right)$ or, with fixed context, $\mathrm{O}\left( \frac{1}{\varepsilon^2} \log \frac{1}{\delta} \right)$ are sufficient, where $d$ is the input dimension. Grounded in the Turing completeness of transformers, these results provide a theoretical foundation for resource-efficient deployment of large language models, with practical techniques like retrieval-augmented generation bridging theory to real-world applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.08060 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of eliciting fine-tuned capabilities. A base model, prompted with dataset [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Self-attention manages the simulated tape state of a Turing machine, with feed-forward [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Prompt structure for TSFT, where input-output pairs from dataset D are concatenated with query x (Lemma 3). Proposition 1. ICL enables Mbase to model a task distribution P(y|x, D) by processing a prompt with dataset D = {(xi , yi)} N i=1, approximating Pfine(y|x). Proof. ICL acts as Bayesian inference over task distributions [9]. For a prompt p = [x1, y1, . . . , xN , yN , x], Mbase computes: Pbase(y|x, p) = Pbase(y… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    arXiv:1706.03762

    Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., et al., 2017.Attention is All You Need. arXiv:1706.03762. https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.03762

    arXiv 2017

  2. [2]

    arXiv:2006.09286.https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.09286

    Bhattamishra, S., Patel, A., Goyal, N., 2020.On the Computational Power of Transformers. arXiv:2006.09286.https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.09286

    arXiv 2020

  3. [3]

    DeepSeek Team, 2025.DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Rein- forcement Learning.https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.12948

    arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    Anthropic, 2025.Claude 4: Opus and Sonnet Models.https://www.anthropic.com/ news/claude-4

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    S., Reid, M., Matsuo, Y ., Iwasawa, Y ., 2022.Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasoners

    Kojima, T., Gu, S. S., Reid, M., Matsuo, Y ., Iwasawa, Y ., 2022.Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasoners. arXiv:2205.11916.https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.11916

    arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    Y ., et al., 2021.Finetuned Language Models are Zero-Shot Learners

    Wei, J., Bosma, M., Zhao, V . Y ., et al., 2021.Finetuned Language Models are Zero-Shot Learners. arXiv:2109.01652.https://arxiv.org/abs/2109.01652

    arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    Life is Computation, 2024.Are Transformers Turing-complete?https:// lifeiscomputation.com/transformers-are-not-turing-complete/

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    K., Ginsberg, E

    Upadhyay, S. K., Ginsberg, E. J., 2024.Turing Complete Transformers. OpenReview.https: //openreview.net/forum?id=MGWsPGogLH 9

    work page 2024

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    M., Raghunathan, A., Liang, P., Ma, T., 2021.An Explanation of In-context Learning as Implicit Bayesian Inference

    Xie, S. M., Raghunathan, A., Liang, P., Ma, T., 2021.An Explanation of In-context Learning as Implicit Bayesian Inference. arXiv:2111.02080.https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.02080

    2021 arXiv

  2. [10]

    R., 2021.Fine-Tuned Transformers Show Clusters of Spe- cialized Neurons

    Phang, J., Févry, T., Bowman, S. R., 2021.Fine-Tuned Transformers Show Clusters of Spe- cialized Neurons. arXiv:2109.08406.https://arxiv.org/abs/2109.08406

    2021 arXiv

  3. [11]

    arXiv:2303.08112.https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.08112

    Elhage, N., Hume, T., Olsson, C., et al., 2023.Eliciting Latent Predictions from Transformers with the Tuned Lens. arXiv:2303.08112.https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.08112

    2023 arXiv

  4. [12]

    arXiv:2201.11903.https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.11903

    Wei, J., Wang, X., Schuurmans, D., et al., 2022.Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reason- ing in Large Language Models. arXiv:2201.11903.https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.11903

    2022 arXiv

  5. [13]

    J., Shen, Y ., Wallis, P., et al., 2021.LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Models

    Hu, E. J., Shen, Y ., Wallis, P., et al., 2021.LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Models. arXiv:2106.09685.https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.09685

    2021 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Pérez, J., Marinkovi ´c, J., Barceló, P., 2021.On the Turing Completeness of Modern Neural Network Architectures. J. Mach. Learn. Res., 22(1), 1–34.https://arxiv.org/abs/1901. 03429

    2021

  7. [15]

    Yun, C., Chang, Y ., Bhojanapalli, S., et al., 2020.Are Transformers Universal Approximators of Sequence-to-Sequence Functions?arXiv:1912.10077.https://arxiv.org/abs/1912. 10077

    2020 arXiv

  8. [16]

    arXiv:2208.01066.https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2208.01066

    Garg, S., Tsipras, D., Liang, P., Valiant, G., 2022.What Can Transformers Learn In-Context? A Case Study of Simple Function Classes. arXiv:2208.01066.https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2208.01066

    2022 arXiv

  9. [17]

    arXiv:2408.03314.https://arxiv.org/ abs/2408.03314

    Snell, C., Klein, D., Clark, J., 2024.Scaling LLM Test-Time Compute Optimally can be More Effective than Scaling Model Parameters. arXiv:2408.03314.https://arxiv.org/ abs/2408.03314

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    arXiv:2502.07123.https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.07123

    Zhang, H., Liu, Q., Xu, M., Yang, L., 2025.Supervised Fine-Tuning as Output Reformatting in Language Models. arXiv:2502.07123.https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.07123

    2025 arXiv

  11. [19]

    OpenAI, 2025.GPT-4.1: New Models with 1M Token Context.https://openai.com/ index/gpt-4-1/

    2025

  12. [20]

    SSRN 5253327.http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5253327

    Sharma, A., 2025.AutoThink: Efficient Inference for Reasoning in Large Language Models. SSRN 5253327.http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5253327

    2025 doi

  13. [21]

    arXiv:2407.18521.https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.18521

    Sharma, A., 2024.Patched MOA: Optimizing Inference for Diverse Software Development Tasks. arXiv:2407.18521.https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.18521

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    arXiv:2407.16557.https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.16557

    Sharma, A., 2024.Patched RTC: Evaluating LLMs for Diverse Software Development Tasks. arXiv:2407.16557.https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.16557

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    GitHub.https://github.com/codelion/adaptive-classifier

    Sharma, A., 2025.Adaptive Classifier: Dynamic Text Classification with Continuous Learning. GitHub.https://github.com/codelion/adaptive-classifier

    2025

  16. [24]

    Sharma, A., 2024.Optillm: Optimizing Inference Proxy for Large Language Models. GitHub. https://github.com/codelion/optillm

    2024

  17. [25]

    arXiv:2410.12345.https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.12345

    Templeton, A., Conerly, T., Nanda, N., 2025.Mechanistic Interpretability for Large Language Models. arXiv:2410.12345.https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.12345

    2025

  18. [26]

    arXiv:2005.11401.https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.11401

    Lewis, P., Perez, E., Piktus, A., et al., 2020.Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge- Intensive NLP Tasks. arXiv:2005.11401.https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.11401

    2020 arXiv

  19. [27]

    B., Mann, B., Ryder, N., et al., 2020.Language Models are Few-Shot Learners

    Brown, T. B., Mann, B., Ryder, N., et al., 2020.Language Models are Few-Shot Learners. arXiv:2005.14165.https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.14165

    2020 arXiv

  20. [28]

    GitHub.https://github.com/codelion/ pts 10

    Sharma, A., 2025.PTS: Pivotal Token Search. GitHub.https://github.com/codelion/ pts 10

    2025

  21. [29]

    arXiv:1605.06423.https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.06423

    Huggins, J., Campbell, T., Broderick, T., 2018.Coresets for Scalable Bayesian Logistic Re- gression. arXiv:1605.06423.https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.06423

    2018 arXiv

  22. [30]

    arXiv:2011.09384.https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.09384

    Feldman, D., 2020.Introduction to Coresets: Lightweight, Representative Subsets of Big Data. arXiv:2011.09384.https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.09384

    2020 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Springer

    Devroye, L., Lugosi, G., 2001.Combinatorial Methods in Density Estimation. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-0125-7

    2001 doi

  24. [32]

    J., 2021.Pre-trained Models for Natural Language Processing: A Survey

    Han, S., Mao, H., Dally, W. J., 2021.Pre-trained Models for Natural Language Processing: A Survey. arXiv:2103.10360.https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.10360

    2021 arXiv

  25. [33]

    C., 2020.A short note on learning discrete distributions

    Clément L. C., 2020.A short note on learning discrete distributions. arXiv:2002.11457. https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.11457

    2020 arXiv

  26. [34]

    [SEP]",

    Vapnik, V . N., 1998.Statistical Learning Theory. Wiley. A Additional Details A.1 Pseudocode for In-Context Learning Prompting The inference techniqueT SFT, as described in Lemma 3, enables a base transformer modelM base to approximate the output distribution of a fine-tuned m...

    1998

  27. [35]

    Initialize an empty string p = ""

  28. [36]

    Append the input x_i to p b

    For each pair (x_i, y_i) in D: a. Append the input x_i to p b. Append the output y_i to p c. Append the separator token [SEP] to p

  29. [37]

    Append the query input x to p

  30. [38]

    Great␣movie!

    Return the prompt p # Example 1: Sentiment Classification D = [("Great␣movie!", "positive"), ("Terrible␣plot.", "negative")] x = "Amazing␣soundtrack!" p = "Great␣movie!␣positive␣[SEP]␣Terrible␣plot.␣negative␣[SEP]␣Amazing␣soundtrack!" # Example 2: Machine Translation (English ...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.