Automatic Combination of Sample Selection Strategies for Few-Shot Learning

Branislav Pecher, Ivan Srba, Maria Bielikova, Joaquin Vanschoren · Feb 5, 2024 · Citations: 0

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

In few-shot learning, the selection of samples has a significant impact on the performance of the model. While effective sample selection strategies are well-established in supervised settings, research on large language models largely overlooks them, favouring strategies specifically tailored to individual in-context learning settings. In this paper, we propose a new method for Automatic Combination of SamplE Selection Strategies (ACSESS) to leverage the strengths and complementarity of various well-established selection objectives. We investigate and compare the impact of 23 sample selection strategies on the performance of 5 in-context learning models and 3 few-shot learning approaches (meta-learning, few-shot fine-tuning) over 6 text and 8 image datasets. The experimental results show that the combination of strategies through the ACSESS method consistently outperforms all individual selection strategies and performs on par or exceeds the in-context learning specific baselines. Lastly, we demonstrate that sample selection remains effective even on smaller datasets, yielding the greatest benefits when only a few shots are selected, while its advantage diminishes as the number of shots increases.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
The abstract does not clearly describe the evaluation setup.
The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 15%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.