Linguistic rules can replace prompting but memorized word pairs cannot

Rules Amortize, Pairings Don't: Linguistic Structure Determines What Latent Task Representations Can Replace In-Context Learning

Computation and LanguageArtificial Intelligence

Summary

When AI models learn from examples given in a prompt, sometimes they can summarize these examples into a simpler pattern called a task vector to make quick predictions. The authors studied which types of language tasks can be compressed this way. They found that predictable, rule-based changes like verb tenses can be fully captured by these task vectors, sometimes even better than by prompting directly. But arbitrary word pairings like opposites (antonyms) cannot be compressed and require seeing example pairs every time. This research shows that how language is structured affects whether AI can shortcut learning with latent task representations.

What this means in practice

Authors

Gunmay Jhingran

Abstract

In-context learning (ICL) can be amortized into latent objects (task vectors, function vectors, context vectors) that recover few-shot behavior at zero-shot inference cost, but recent theory shows a static vector acts as a single synthetic demonstration and must fail on high-rank mappings such as word-level bijections. We ask a linguistic version of this question: which linguistic operations can be amortized out of the prompt? We train a 2.6M-parameter network that reads the geometry of a few-shot support set (centroid, principal subspace, spectrum, computed once and cached) and produces an input-conditioned additive update to the query's residual stream at a mid-depth layer of a frozen GPT-2-large/XL. Across eight inflectional directions and one lexical relation, under a canonical split that bars inverted-pair leakage between directions, three regimes emerge. On forward inflection, where 10-shot ICL is strong (0.67-0.89) and extracted task vectors collapse (<=0.06), the transform matches ICL at strictly zero-shot per-query cost. On lemmatization directions, which frozen GPT-2 can execute but 10 demonstrations systematically fail to convey (ICL 0.13-0.48 at 1.5B), the transform is not capped by ICL at all: it reaches 0.78-0.92, up to +72 points over ICL (past to present: 0.85 vs. 0.13). On arbitrary pairings (antonymy) every amortizer plateaus near half of ICL at every scale, capacity, and seed tested. Controls show the support manifold acts as a causally necessary task fingerprint: wrong-task manifolds collapse accuracy to <=0.06, query-only variants cannot disambiguate tasks sharing an input space, and leave-one-task-out transfer is zero. Productive rules amortize into latent task representations, sometimes better than prompting can convey them; memorized pairings do not.