On Sensitivity of Learning with Limited Labelled Data to the Effects of Randomness: Impact of Interactions and Systematic Choices
Branislav Pecher, Ivan Srba, Mária Bieliková
Abstract
While learning with limited labelled data can effectively deal with a lack of labels, it is also sensitive to the effects of uncontrolled randomness introduced by so-called randomness factors (i.e., non-deterministic decisions such as choice or order of samples). We propose and formalise a method to systematically investigate the effects of individual randomness factors while taking the interactions (dependence) between them into consideration. To this end, our method mitigates the effects of other factors while observing how the performance varies across multiple runs. Applying our method to multiple randomness factors across in-context learning and fine-tuning approaches on 7 representative text classification tasks and metalearning on 3 tasks, we show that: 1) disregarding interactions between randomness factors in existing works led to inconsistent findings due to incorrect attribution of the effects of randomness factors, such as disproving the consistent sensitivity of in-context learning to sample order even with random sample selection; and 2) besides mutual interactions, the effects of randomness factors, especially sample order, are also dependent on more systematic choices unexplored in existing works, such as number of classes, samples per class or choice of prompt format.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 201473ee-64a5-4748-acaf-3534582bfaefCited by top-tier papers2
- Comparing Specialised Small and General Large Language Models on Text Classification: 100 Labelled Samples to Achieve Break-Even PerformanceBranislav Pecher, Ivan Srba, Mária BielikováEMNLP 2025 · 6 citations
- The Good, the Bad, and the Debatable: A Survey on the Impacts of Data for In-Context LearningStephanie Schoch, Yangfeng JiEMNLP 2025
Builds on10
- Fantastically Ordered Prompts and Where to Find Them: Overcoming Few-Shot Prompt Order SensitivityYao Lu, Max Bartolo, Alastair Moore, Sebastian Riedel et al.ACL 2022 · 1,494 citations
- Quantifying Language Models' Sensitivity to Spurious Features in Prompt Design or: How I learned to start worrying about prompt formattingMelanie Sclar, Yejin Choi, Yulia Tsvetkov, Alane SuhrICLR 2024 · 682 citations
- On the Stability of Fine-tuning BERT: Misconceptions, Explanations, and Strong BaselinesMarius Mosbach, Maksym Andriushchenko, Dietrich KlakowICLR 2021 · 448 citations
- Task Contamination: Language Models May Not Be Few-Shot AnymoreChangmao Li, Jeffrey FlaniganAAAI 2024 · 138 citations
- CrossFit: A Few-shot Learning Challenge for Cross-task Generalization in NLPQinyuan Ye, Bill Yuchen Lin, Xiang RenEMNLP 2021 · 103 citations
Related papers
- What Do Language Models Learn in Context? The Structured Task HypothesisJiaoda Li, Yifan Hou, Mrinmaya Sachan, Ryan CotterellACL 2024 · 5 citations
- Rethinking Invariance in In-context LearningLizhe Fang, Yifei Wang, Khashayar Gatmiry, Lei Fang et al.ICLR 2025
- Meta-in-context learning in large language modelsJulian Coda-Forno, Marcel Binz, Zeynep Akata, Matt M. Botvinick et al.NeurIPS 2023 · 81 citations
- Prompt Optimization with EASE? Efficient Ordering-aware Automated Selection of ExemplarsZhaoxuan Wu, Xiaoqiang Lin, Zhongxiang Dai, Wenyang Hu et al.NeurIPS 2024 · 44 citations
- Rethinking the Role of Demonstrations: What Makes In-Context Learning Work?Sewon Min, Xinxi Lyu, Ari Holtzman, Mikel Artetxe et al.EMNLP 2022 · 634 citations
