Structured prediction tasks pose unique challenges for in-context learning (ICL): their compositional outputs require modeling fine-grained, token-level patterns that sentence-level approaches fail to capture, and their task-specific annotation conventions are human-defined artifacts that cannot be acquired through pretraining alone. We propose Verb-ICL, a selective annotation framework for ICL-based structured prediction that addresses both challenges. Verb-ICL first selects representative examples using a token-level coverage strategy that captures local semantic patterns critical for structured prediction, then generates actionable error feedback that codifies task-specific annotation guidelines and incorporates this feedback into ICL demonstrations. We evaluate Verb-ICL on six structured prediction datasets spanning information extraction and semantic parsing. Experiments with recent LLMs show that Verb-ICL consistently outperforms strong selective annotation baselines under low-resource settings and continues to provide gains as the annotation budget increases. Extended analyses demonstrate that the generated feedback is predominantly useful across a four-category quality taxonomy, generalizes as task-level guidance beyond instance-specific corrections, and improves performance regardless of the underlying selection strategy.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of Verb-ICL . In Step 1 , we use a coverage-driven strategy to select M examples that best cover the unlabeled pool U . In Step 2 , we collect model errors from annotated examples, and prompt the LLM to generate textual feedback that is incorporated as “Notes” in future demonstrations to guide subsequent predictions.
∣L∣
Method
NCBI
TwNER7
PHEE
GeoQ
ATIS
MTOP
Avg.
16
Random
61.2 4.4
52.3 1.4
56.6 2.7
23.0 3.8
27.3 0.8
11.9 2.1
38.7
K-means
63.8 0.6
54.1 1.0
58.5 1.5
28.0 3.6
30.7 2.0
17.2 0.8
42.1
IDDS ( 2022 )
65.0 0.3
55.4 0.3
57.7 0.0
27.7 0.2
35.6 0.3
15.3 0.2
42.8
Vote- k ( 2023 )
58.0 2.8
51.9 2.2
52.8 2.6
25.6 0.9
27.0 3.2
11.8 0.6
37.9
+ SET-BSR
59.4 3.0
52.9 1.6
54.6 1.9
29.3 2.6
27.7 4.1
14.7 2.0
39.8
LDCAL ( 2024 )
56.3 0.3
51.9 0.1
51.9 0.1
16.3 0.2
16.0 0.0
9.1 0.1
33.6
Table 1: Comparison of Verb-ICL and seven baselines across six datasets using GPT-4o-mini , evaluated under annotation budgets of 16 and 64 examples. Results are averaged over three random seeds, with standard deviations reported as subscripts. For vote- k , IDEAL and CoverICL, we also report results using their original sentence embedding similarity-based retrievers. Verb-ICL outperforms baselines in both budget settings.
Figure 2: Performance scaling with increasing annotation budgets from 16 to 512 examples on two representative datasets: NCBI (left) and ATIS (right). We compare Verb-ICL with best-performing baselines: Random, K-Means, IDDS, vote- k , and CoverICL. Verb-ICL outperforms baselines at every budget level on both datasets.
Feedback Design
Accuracy
Method
Source
Grounding
Notes
Position
NCBI
ATIS
(a) Verb-ICL w/o EF
–
–
–
–
69.6 0.1
48.7 0.5
(b1) LEAP-style
zero-shot
gold
all
global
68.0 0.9
50.4 0.8
(b2) –
LOO
gold
all
global
69.9 0.2
49.5 1.5
(c) –
LOO
gold
retrieved
global
67.7 0.4
52.1 0.5
(d) Verb-ICL
LOO
gold
retrieved
inline
71.3 0.7
52.9 1.4
Table 2: Error feedback design comparison on NCBI (mention-level F1) and ATIS (exact match), using GPT-4o-mini at a 64-example budget, averaged over three seeds. All rows use Verb-ICL ’s coverage-driven selection, so only the feedback design differs; EF denotes error feedback, and LOO means leave-one-out. Each adjacent pair isolates one dimension: error source (b1 vs. b2), feedback selection (b2 vs. c), positioning (c vs. d), and grounding (d vs. e).
Dataset
n
Concrete
General
Misdiag.
Over-gen./Vague
NCBI
38
5 (13%)
28 (74%)
4 (11%)
1 (3%)
TweetNER7
179
20 (11%)
151 (84%)
0
8 (4%)
PHEE
240
1 (0%)
225 (94%)
14 (6%)
0
ATIS
63
19 (30%)
43 (68%)
–
1 (2%)
GeoQuery
66
48 (73%)
14 (21%)
–
4 (6%)
MTOP
81
65 (80%)
16 (20%)
–
0
Table 3: Distribution of feedback quality categories across all six datasets (64-shot). Misdiagnosis is verified for information extraction tasks only; “–” indicates not applicable for semantic parsing tasks. Over-generalized and vague categories are merged for compactness.
ATIS
MTOP
Method
Total
Struct.
Value
Total
Struct.
Value
Random
608
491
117
737
633
104
K-Means
547
427 (–13.0%)
120
700
577 (–8.8%)
123
Verb-ICL w/o EF
520
424 (–13.6%)
96
661
521 (–17.7%)
140
Verb-ICL
487
400 (–18.5%)
87
643
492 (–22.3%)
151
Table 4: Error composition on ATIS and MTOP ( GPT-4o-mini , 64-example budget, seed 42). Incorrect predictions are split into structural and value violations; parentheses give the relative reduction in structural violations against Random. Both components reduce structural violations; value counts rise because a value violation is counted only when the structure is correct.
Error Feedback
4o-mini
4o
4.1
Dataset
Cov. Sel.
(10/01/23)
(10/01/23)
(06/01/24)
NCBI
69.4 0.0
71.1 0.3
71.3 0.6
71.3 0.6
ATIS
48.7 0.5
49.7 0.4
51.2 0.1
53.0 1.1
PHEE
61.1 0.1
61.3 0.3
62.0 0.3
62.1 0.1
Table 5: Left: LLM ablation for error feedback generation under the 64-example setting using GPT-4o-mini for ICL inference. Stronger models yield larger gains on complex tasks; gains on PHEE (released 2024) from pre-2024-cutoff models alleviate contamination concerns. Right: LLM cost comparison on NCBI (64-example). Verb-ICL costs less by generating feedback only for coverage-selected examples.
Appendix figures & tables13 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
# Instances
Task Type
Dataset
(train / dev / test)
Info. Extraction
NCBI ( 2014 )
5.4k / 0.9k / 0.9k
TweetNER7 ( 2022 )
7.1k / 0.8k / 0.6k
PHEE ( 2024 )
2.9k / 1.0k / 1.0k
Semantic Parsing
GeoQuery ( 1996 )
0.7k / - / 0.2k
ATIS ( 1990 )
4.0k / - / 1.0k
Appendix
Table 6: Statistics of the six evaluated datasets.
∣L∣
Method
NCBI
TwNER7
PHEE
GeoQ
ATIS
MTOP
Avg.
16
Random
50.9 6.2
42.7 0.3
56.8 2.5
19.3 1.1
28.6 1.2
9.5 2.1
34.6
K-means
52.0 1.8
44.0 2.7
57.9 0.7
26.5 0.7
31.3 2.5
14.4 0.7
37.7
IDDS ( 2022 )
45.0 0.0
42.2 0.3
58.1 0.0
24.5 0.2
38.9 0.0
12.4 0.0
36.9
Vote- k ( 2023 )
29.0 0.0
35.6 0.0
56.2 0.0
19.3 0.0
29.9 0.0
11.3 0.0
30.2
LDCAL ( 2024 )
34.2 0.2
40.3 0.0
55.8 0.0
15.0 0.0
17.1 0.0
9.2 0.2
28.6
CoverICL ( 2024 )
48.8 3.7
38.3 2.1
58.0 0.5
28.2 0.5
27.1 2.7
10.8 1.0
35.2
Appendix
Table 7: Comparison of Verb-ICL and seven baselines across six datasets using Qwen2.5-7B , evaluated under two annotation budgets. Verb-ICL outperforms baselines, demonstrating its robustness across different LLMs.
Information Extraction
Semantic Parsing
LLM
Method
NCBI
TwNER7
PHEE
GeoQ
ATIS
MTOP
Avg.
Qwen2.5-7B
Sen. Emb.
66.7
45.0
61.7
63.2
67.7
61.1
60.9
BSR
68.7
47.2
62.7
66.4
72.7
64.3
63.6
SET-BSR
69.2
48.1
63.6
68.2
75.8
64.7
65.0
gpt-4o-mini
Sen. Emb.
71.5
57.9
63.0
70.7
68.2
67.8
66.5
BSR
73.9
60.6
64.2
73.2
74.4
72.0
69.8
Appendix
Table 8: Comparison of demonstration retrieval methods using the full training set. SET-BSR consistently outperforms sentence embedding-based retrievers across all settings.
gpt-4o-mini
Qwen2.5-7B
Task
Dataset
∣L∣=16
Full
Δ
∣L∣=16
Full
Δ
Information Extraction
NCBI ( 2014 )
61.2 4.4
77.7
+16.5
50.9 6.2
69.2
+18.3
TweetNER7 ( 2022 )
52.3 1.4
60.8
+8.5
42.7 0.3
48.1
+5.4
PHEE ( 2024 )
56.6 2.7
64.7
+8.1
56.8 2.5
63.6
+6.8
Semantic Parsing
GeoQ ( 1996 )
23.0 3.8
75.0
+52.0
19.3 1.1
68.2
+48.9
ATIS ( 1990 )
27.3 0.8
75.5
+48.2
28.6 1.2
75.8
+47.2
Appendix
Table 9: Comparison between randomly selecting 16 demonstrations and using the full training set with SET-BSR on six structured prediction datasets. Scaling from 16 to the full training set yields substantial improvements, confirming that these tasks benefit from additional annotations and more careful selection strategies.
Dataset
# token/sent.
Results
NCBI
5
68.9 0.5
10
70.7 0.2
15
68.6 0.2
full
69.6 0.1
GeoQuery
5
51.6 0.5
10
55.1 0.5
Appendix
Table 10: Verb-ICL coverage-driven selection results (64-example budget) with different column sizes for Ci . We can see that reducing the column size to 10 does not impact the performance of coverage-driven selection significantly.
Method
16-shot
64-shot
256-shot
Label Reweight
2.5
8.3
47.8
Verb-ICL
30.3
44.4
52.1
Appendix
Table 11: Fine-tuning BERT-base performance with data selected by Verb-ICL vs. Label Reweight ( Luo et al., 2023 ) on CoNLL03. Across all three annotation budgets (16, 64, and 256 examples), data selected by Verb-ICL consistently leads to higher fine-tuning performance.
∣L∣
Model
NCBI
PHEE
GeoQ
Average
16
DeBERTa-Large-MNLI
66.2 0.2
59.1 0.1
35.5 0.4
53.6
DeBERTa-Base-MNLI
65.4 0.2
57.4 0.2
34.9 0.6
52.6
BERT-base-uncased
64.3 0.2
56.7 0.2
39.2 0.4
53.4
all-mpnet-base-v2
63.2 0.2
57.3 0.2
34.0 0.2
51.5
64
DeBERTa-Large-MNLI
69.7 0.1
61.1 0.1
53.1 0.3
61.3
DeBERTa-Base-MNLI
67.8 0.2
61.1 0.2
54.3 0.3
61.1
Appendix
Table 12: Comparison of four embedding models for ICL using GPT-4o-mini . DeBERTa-Large-MNLI demonstrates great performance in most settings.
NCBI
ATIS
GeoQuery
TweetNER7
PHEE
MTOP
16
64
16
64
16
64
16
64
16
64
16
64
#Total feedback
8
26
15
44
12
43
16
60
14
60
14
53
#Verified feedback
4
14
2
17
4
15
7
15
0
4
2
16
ICL w/ verified only
67.4
70.6
36.0
50.8
37.5
54.3
55.4
55.0
58.9
61.4
21.7
35.2
ICL w/ all feedback
68.6
71.1
39.1
51.7
35.4
56.1
53.6
55.6
59.6
61.8
22.7
35.7
Appendix
Table 13: Analysis of LLM-generated error feedback across all six datasets under 16-shot and 64-shot annotation budgets, using a single seed (42) to reduce cost, as variance across seeds is small. “Verified” feedback refers to feedback that directly corrects the original error when added to the ICL prompt. Using all feedback beats using only verified feedback in 10 of 12 settings, so feedback provides task-level guidance beyond instance-specific correction.
NCBI
ATIS
Method
16-shot
64-shot
16-shot
64-shot
Random
67.1
68.6
28.5
39.7
+ EF
67.6 +0.5
69.3 +0.7
29.4 +0.9
42.9 +3.2
K-Means
63.4
69.3
28.2
45.7
+ EF
65.7 +2.3
71.4 +2.1
28.4 +0.2
48.8 +3.1
vote- k
64.1
66.7
29.6
42.5
Appendix
Table 14: Effect of applying error feedback (EF) as a post-processing step on top of different selection strategies, computed with GPT-4o-mini at a single seed (42). The claim that feedback helps regardless of selection method rests on the within-row EF gain, which compares the same selected examples with and without feedback and is unaffected by the selection seed.
Accuracy
Avg. length
Method
NCBI
ATIS
NCBI
ATIS
Random
67.7 0.3
42.5 2.7
23.8
10.9
BoW-coverage
68.6 0.2
41.0 0.1
64.7
19.3
Longest- n
65.5 0.3
37.6 0.1
75.5
27.4
Verb-ICL w/o EF
69.6 0.1
48.7 0.5
42.0
13.1
Appendix
Table 15: Token-level selection baselines at a 64-example budget with GPT-4o-mini , averaged over three seeds. NCBI reports mention-level F1 and ATIS exact match. Average length is the word count of the M selected examples after whitespace tokenization and lowercasing.
NCBI
ATIS
Method
16
64
16
64
Random
68.6 2.9
73.5 1.2
33.2 0.8
50.8 3.3
K-Means
70.7 0.7
74.5 1.0
36.3 1.9
52.0 2.7
IDDS
72.8 0.9
72.9 0.3
41.2 0.8
53.1 0.4
Verb-ICL w/o EF
73.2 0.4
75.7 0.4
45.9 0.3
58.7 0.5
Verb-ICL
74.7 0.1
76.9 0.3
46.0 1.2
59.7 0.7
Appendix
Table 16: ICL performance with GPT-5.4-mini under 16- and 64-example annotation budgets, averaged over three seeds. NCBI reports mention-level F1 and ATIS exact match. Feedback is generated by GPT-4.1 , as in the main experiments.
Method
Error source
Grounding
Selection
Position
LEAP
zero-shot
gold
all
global
Self-Refine
test-time output
label-free
–
–
Verb-ICL
leave-one-out
gold
retrieved
inline
Appendix
Table 17: Existing error feedback methods situated across the four design dimensions.
Dataset
Task
Error feedback
NCBI
IE
Only include the core disease term in the entity span, and exclude preceding descriptive adjectives unless they are part of the canonical disease name.
TweetNER7
IE
Government bodies and administrations should be classified as “corporation”, not “group”.
PHEE
IE
Only extract subject_disorder when the text explicitly states that the patient has the condition, not when it is described as an outcome or a risk.
GeoQuery
SP
Use state abbreviations (e.g., “wa”) in cityid predicates, not full state names.
ATIS
SP
Add the predicates needed to represent the target entity type (“city”) and the relationship (“to”) that links flights to cities.
MTOP
SP
When the sentence instructs the system to send a message or ask someone something, use SEND_MESSAGE as the intent rather than ASK .
Appendix
Table 18: Representative error feedback generated by GPT-4.1 on GPT-4o-mini predictions at a 64-example budget, one item per dataset. IE denotes information extraction and SP semantic parsing.
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as conditional generators for structured data, relying on in-context learning (ICL) to adapt to new distributions without parameter updates. We investigate the limits of ICL for structured generation under distribution mismatch, using high-cardinality tabular data as a controlled test case, and identify a structural failure mode we term categorical prior lock-in: the inability of ICL to update the model's prior over token distributions inherited from pre-training. Across two 7B-parameter open-weight models, ICL improves numerical fidelity with additional examples but exhibits a sharp ceiling on categorical distributions, failing to reproduce rare classes entirely. Parameter-efficient fine-tuning (LoRA) overcomes these limitations but introduces measurable memorization risk and, in some cases, destabilizes structured output generation, highlighting a fundamental trade-off between adaptability and privacy.
Antonio Pelusi, Stefano Braghin, Alberto Trombetta
University of Insubria, Italy · IBM Research, Ireland
In-context learning (ICL) is an emerging paradigm that employs the semantic information inherent in large language models (LLMs) for generating answers to user queries. While the remarkable performance of ICL has been widely known, a general modeling and a rigorous theoretical analysis of this paradigm are still lacking. This work presents a probabilistic model for ICL and derives the performance of ICL for both general parametric distributions and exponential families. Based on the derived results, the work explains the impact of multiple factors such as the number of demonstrations, the sensitivity of the probabilistic model to the variation of its parameters, as well as the similarity between the demonstrations and the query on the performance of ICL.
Zhenyu Liu, Huaze Tang, Shao-Lun Huang
Tsinghua Shenzhen International Graduate School, Tsinghua University, Shenzhen, China
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.