Are Human-generated Demonstrations Necessary for In-context Learning?
Rui Li, Guoyin Wang, Jiwei Li

TL;DR
This paper introduces SEC, a prompting strategy where large language models generate their own demonstrations, eliminating the need for human-crafted examples and achieving comparable or better performance in various reasoning tasks.
Contribution
SEC is a novel framework enabling LLMs to self-generate demonstrations, reducing reliance on manual examples and simplifying the in-context learning process.
Findings
SEC outperforms zero-shot learning across tasks.
SEC matches the performance of traditional ICL with human demonstrations.
SEC simplifies the process of in-context learning for LLMs.
Abstract
Despite the promising few-shot ability of large language models (LLMs), the standard paradigm of In-context Learning (ICL) suffers the disadvantages of susceptibility to selected demonstrations and the intricacy to generate these demonstrations. In this paper, we raise the fundamental question that whether human-generated demonstrations are necessary for ICL. To answer this question, we propose self-contemplation prompting strategy (SEC), a paradigm free from human-crafted demonstrations. The key point of SEC is that, instead of using hand-crafted examples as demonstrations in ICL, SEC asks LLMs to first create demonstrations on their own, based on which the final output is generated. SEC is a flexible framework and can be adapted to both the vanilla ICL and the chain-of-thought (CoT), but with greater ease: as the manual-generation process of both examples and rationale can be saved.…
Peer Reviews
Decision·ICLR 2024 poster
- The paper is quite clear and easy to follow. - The method is easy to understand. - The evaluation is well-designed.
- The main concern is the significance of the paper. The proposed prompting method can be treated as a two-step chain-of-though prompting by letting the LLM (1) first think about the possible demonstration and then (2) use the demonstration to do in-context learning. Form this point of view, the prompting framework is one specific usage of CoT, which makes the contribution limited.
The paper is well written and is easy to understand. The paper introduces an interesting idea of only relying on the target LLM for generating demonstrations based on the target query sample. Doing so results in generating demonstrations that are probably better suited for the query sample. Also, the proposed approach helps remove the need for curating hand-crafted demonstrations which is a time consuming task.
1) The SEC method is only compared to the ICL approach where demonstrations are hand selected, i.e., not automatically selected. Several automated demonstration selection and curation approaches have been proposed in the last few years that should have been considered. SEC performs similar to hand-crafted ICL demonstrations. However, it is very likely that it might underperform once automated demonstration selection+curation approaches are introduced for comparison. Please look at the following
This is very interesting in the sense that it completely eliminates the effort of writing demonstrations in in-context learning. Although the idea itself is very simple, the experimental results obtained are also very impressive.
What everyone probably cares about is whether the generated demonstration is correct. The authors analyze this point in Sec. 4 and Appendix B, but the number of predictions analyzed is very small (20 correct and 20 incorrect), making it difficult to reach a statistically consistent conclusion. In particular, we need a clear hypothesis as to why the correct answer rate increases even though the generated demonstration is incorrect, and a sufficient amount of evidence to support it. Also, using o
Code & Models
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsTopic Modeling · Natural Language Processing Techniques · Text Readability and Simplification
