Fine-tuning vs. In-context Learning in Large Language Models: A Formal Language Learning Perspective

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.23267v1
• Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2026 12:19:25 GMT
• Title: Fine-tuning vs. In-context Learning in Large Language Models: A Formal Language Learning Perspective
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) operate in two fundamental learning modes - fine-tuning (FT) and in-context learning (ICL)<n>Prior studies comparing FT and ICL have yielded mixed and inconclusive results due to inconsistent experimental setups.<n>We propose a formal language learning task offering precise language boundaries, controlled string sampling, and no data contamination.
• Score: 15.30367035674579
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) operate in two fundamental learning modes - fine-tuning (FT) and in-context learning (ICL) - raising key questions about which mode yields greater language proficiency and whether they differ in their inductive biases. Prior studies comparing FT and ICL have yielded mixed and inconclusive results due to inconsistent experimental setups. To enable a rigorous comparison, we propose a formal language learning task - offering precise language boundaries, controlled string sampling, and no data contamination - and introduce a discriminative test for language proficiency, where an LLM succeeds if it assigns higher generation probability to in-language strings than to out-of-language strings. Empirically, we find that: (a) FT has greater language proficiency than ICL on in-distribution generalization, but both perform equally well on out-of-distribution generalization. (b) Their inductive biases, measured by the correlation in string generation probabilities, are similar when both modes partially learn the language but diverge at higher proficiency levels. (c) Unlike FT, ICL performance differs substantially across models of varying sizes and families and is sensitive to the token vocabulary of the language. Thus, our work demonstrates the promise of formal languages as a controlled testbed for evaluating LLMs, behaviors that are difficult to isolate in natural language datasets. Our source code is available at https://github.com/bishwamittra/formallm.

Related papers

• Reasoning over Grammar: Can Synthetic Linguistic Reasoning Traces Enhance Low-Resource Machine Translation? [49.7935995447581]
  We investigate whether low-resource machine translation can benefit from structured intermediate steps of linguistic analysis and grammatical reasoning.<n>We propose a pipeline for automatically generating step-by-step linguistic reasoning traces from Universal Dependencies treebanks, dictionaries, and grammar-rule banks.<n>Our results show that linguistic reasoning traces are most effective as inference-time guidance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-02T15:36:12Z)
• Biasless Language Models Learn Unnaturally: How LLMs Fail to Distinguish the Possible from the Impossible [4.7831562043724665]
  We show that GPT-2 learns each language and its impossible counterpart equally easily.<n>By considering cross-linguistic variance in various metrics computed on the perplexity curves, we show that GPT-2 provides no systematic separation between the possible and the impossible.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-08T16:17:13Z)
• Child-Directed Language Does Not Consistently Boost Syntax Learning in Language Models [5.636296752147828]
  We show that language models trained on English Child-Directed Language (CDL) reach similar syntactic abilities as LMs trained on larger amounts of adult-directed written text.<n>We test this by comparing models trained on CDL vs. Wikipedia across two LM objectives (masked and causal), three languages (English, French, German), and three syntactic minimal-pair benchmarks.<n>Our results on these benchmarks show inconsistent benefits of CDL, which in most cases is outperformed by Wikipedia models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-29T17:25:36Z)
• Can Language Models Learn Typologically Implausible Languages? [62.823015163987996]
  Grammatical features across human languages show intriguing correlations often attributed to learning biases in humans.<n>We discuss how language models (LMs) allow us to better determine the role of domain-general learning biases in language universals.<n>We test LMs on an array of highly naturalistic but counterfactual versions of the English (head-initial) and Japanese (head-final) languages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-17T20:40:01Z)
• Randomly Sampled Language Reasoning Problems Elucidate Limitations of In-Context Learning [9.75748930802634]
  We study the power of in-context-learning to improve machine learning performance.<n>We consider an extremely simple domain: next token prediction on simple language tasks.<n>We find that LLMs uniformly underperform n-gram models on this task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-06T07:57:51Z)
• Understanding and Mitigating Language Confusion in LLMs [76.96033035093204]
  We evaluate 15 typologically diverse languages with existing and newly-created English and multilingual prompts.<n>We find that Llama Instruct and Mistral models exhibit high degrees of language confusion.<n>We find that language confusion can be partially mitigated via few-shot prompting, multilingual SFT and preference tuning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-28T17:03:51Z)
• What Languages are Easy to Language-Model? A Perspective from Learning Probabilistic Regular Languages [78.1866280652834]
  Large language models (LM) are distributions over strings.<n>We investigate the learnability of regular LMs (RLMs) by RNN and Transformer LMs.<n>We find that the complexity of the RLM rank is strong and significant predictors of learnability for both RNNs and Transformers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-06T17:34:24Z)
• How Proficient Are Large Language Models in Formal Languages? An In-Depth Insight for Knowledge Base Question Answering [52.86931192259096]
  Knowledge Base Question Answering (KBQA) aims to answer natural language questions based on facts in knowledge bases. Recent works leverage the capabilities of large language models (LLMs) for logical form generation to improve performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-11T09:27:50Z)
• Evaluating Neural Language Models as Cognitive Models of Language Acquisition [4.779196219827507]
  We argue that some of the most prominent benchmarks for evaluating the syntactic capacities of neural language models may not be sufficiently rigorous. When trained on small-scale data modeling child language acquisition, the LMs can be readily matched by simple baseline models. We conclude with suggestions for better connecting LMs with the empirical study of child language acquisition.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-31T00:16:17Z)
• A Multi-level Supervised Contrastive Learning Framework for Low-Resource Natural Language Inference [54.678516076366506]
  Natural Language Inference (NLI) is a growingly essential task in natural language understanding. Here we propose a multi-level supervised contrastive learning framework named MultiSCL for low-resource natural language inference.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-31T05:54:18Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.