When English Isn't the Best Teacher: Source Language Effects in Cross-Lingual In-Context Learning

Instruction following is a critical ability for Large Language Models to be used directly by humans. This often requires supervised fine-tuning on curated instruction datasets, sometimes complemented with an alignment step. However, in multilingual scenarios, obtaining high-quality data for these stages remains challenging, motivating the exploration of In-Context Learning (ICL) as a possible alternative. In this work, we study whether ICL can serve as a substitute for Instruction Tuning in multilingual language models, while also examining how the comparison changes with model scale. Our results indicate that a gap remains between ICL and Instruction Tuning, motivating further research to reduce it.

In-context learning (ICL) allows large language models (LLMs) to adapt to new tasks from a few examples, making it promising for languages underrepresented in pre-training. Recent work on many-shot ICL suggests that modern LLMs can further benefit from larger ICL examples enabled by their long context windows. However, such gains depend on careful example selection, and the inference cost can be prohibitive for low-resource language communities. In this paper, we present an empirical study of many-shot ICL for machine translation from English into ten truly low-resource languages recently added to FLORES+. We analyze the effects of retrieving more informative examples, using out-of-domain data, and ordering examples by length. Our findings show that many-shot ICL becomes more effective as the number of examples increases. More importantly, we show that BM25-based retrieval substantially improves data efficiency: 50 retrieved examples roughly match 250 many-shot examples, while 250 retrieved examples perform similarly to 1,000 many-shot examples. We further show that ICL provides additional gains on top of fine-tuning.

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.