Skip to content
← Back to explorer

GRaSp: Automatic Example Optimization for In-Context Learning in Low-Data Tasks

Simen Bihaug-Frøyland, Henrik Brådland · May 8, 2026 · Citations: 0

How to use this page

Moderate trust

Use this for comparison and orientation, not as your only source.

Best use

Secondary protocol comparison source

What to verify

Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.

Evidence quality

Moderate

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

In-context learning enables large language models to adapt to new tasks, but their performance is highly sensitive to the selected examples. Finding effective demonstrations is particularly difficult in domain-specific, low-data settings where high-quality examples are scarce. We propose GRaSp, a three-stage framework for automatic in-context example optimization. By first generating a large synthetic candidate pool, then structuring it with clustering and dimensionality reduction, and finally using genetic algorithms to find the optimal in-context examples, the framework shows consistent improvements on the NER task. We also introduce a custom diversity-adaptive mutation mechanism, allowing it to transition from the initial broad inter-cluster exploration to focused intra-cluster refinement as the population converges. We evaluate GRaSp on financial named entity recognition (FiNER-139), comparing synthetic and human-annotated candidate pools across pool sizes of 500 and 5000. With non-synthetic data, GRaSp achieves 45.84% micro-F1, consistently outperforming both zero-shot and random few-shot baselines. Synthetic data matches the random baseline but does not exceed it, suggesting that distributional variety in the candidate pool is critical for generalization.

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper has useful evaluation signal, but protocol completeness is partial; pair it with related papers before deciding implementation strategy.

Best use

Secondary protocol comparison source

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

No major weakness surfaced.

Trust level

Moderate

Usefulness score

65/100 • Medium

Useful as a secondary reference; validate protocol details against neighboring papers.

Human Feedback Signal

Detected

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Moderate-confidence candidate

Extraction confidence 70%

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.

Human Feedback Types

strong

Demonstrations

Directly usable for protocol triage.

"Finding effective demonstrations is particularly difficult in domain-specific, low-data settings where high-quality examples are scarce."

Evaluation Modes

strong

Automatic Metrics

Includes extracted eval setup.

"In-context learning enables large language models to adapt to new tasks, but their performance is highly sensitive to the selected examples."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"In-context learning enables large language models to adapt to new tasks, but their performance is highly sensitive to the selected examples."

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"In-context learning enables large language models to adapt to new tasks, but their performance is highly sensitive to the selected examples."

Reported Metrics

strong

F1, F1 micro

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

"In-context learning enables large language models to adapt to new tasks, but their performance is highly sensitive to the selected examples."

Human Feedback Details

  • Uses human feedback: Yes
  • Feedback types: Demonstrations
  • Rater population: Not reported
  • Expertise required: General

Evaluation Details

  • Evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics
  • Agentic eval: None
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Evidence quality: Moderate
  • Use this page as: Secondary protocol comparison source

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported Metrics

f1f1 micro

Research Brief

Metadata summary

In-context learning enables large language models to adapt to new tasks, but their performance is highly sensitive to the selected examples.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • In-context learning enables large language models to adapt to new tasks, but their performance is highly sensitive to the selected examples.
  • Finding effective demonstrations is particularly difficult in domain-specific, low-data settings where high-quality examples are scarce.
  • We propose GRaSp, a three-stage framework for automatic in-context example optimization.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Validate inferred eval signals (Automatic metrics) against the full paper.
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended Queries

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • We propose GRaSp, a three-stage framework for automatic in-context example optimization.
  • We evaluate GRaSp on financial named entity recognition (FiNER-139), comparing synthetic and human-annotated candidate pools across pool sizes of 500 and 5000.
  • With non-synthetic data, GRaSp achieves 45.84% micro-F1, consistently outperforming both zero-shot and random few-shot baselines.

Why It Matters For Eval

  • We evaluate GRaSp on financial named entity recognition (FiNER-139), comparing synthetic and human-annotated candidate pools across pool sizes of 500 and 5000.

Researcher Checklist

  • Pass: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    Detected: Demonstrations

  • Pass: Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Automatic Metrics

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Gap: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Pass: Metric reporting is present

    Detected: f1, f1 micro

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

Get Started

Join the #1 Platform for AI Training Talent

Where top AI builders and expert AI Trainers connect to build the future of AI.
Self-Service
Post a Job
Post your project and get a shortlist of qualified AI Trainers and Data Labelers. Hire and manage your team in the tools you already use.
Managed Service
For Large Projects
Done-for-You
We recruit, onboard, and manage a dedicated team inside your tools. End-to-end operations for large or complex projects.
For Freelancers
Join as an AI Trainer
Find AI training and data labeling projects across platforms, all in one place. One profile, one application process, more opportunities.