ArticleArXiv2025
The dynamic interplay between in-context and in-weight learning in humans and neural networks.
Article in ArXiv, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Human learning embodies a striking duality: sometimes, we appear capable of following logical, compositional rules and benefit from structured curricula (e.g., in formal education), while other times, we rely on an incremental approach or trial-and-error, learning better from curricula that are randomly interleaved. Influential psychological theories explain this seemingly disparate behavioral evidence by positing two qualitatively different learning systems-one for rapid, rule-based inferences and another for slow, incremental adaptation. It remains unclear how to reconcile such theories with neural networks, which learn via incremental weight updates and are thus a natural model for the latter type of learning, but are not obviously compatible with the former. However, recent evidence suggests that metalearning neural networks and large language models are capable of "in-context learning" (ICL)-the ability to flexibly grasp the structure of a new task from a few examples. Here, we show that the dynamic interplay between ICL and default in-weight learning (IWL) naturally captures a broad range of learning phenomena observed in humans, reproducing curriculum effects on category-learning and compositional tasks, and recapitulating a tradeoff between flexibility and retention. Our work shows how emergent ICL can equip neural networks with fundamentally different learning properties that can coexist with their native IWL, thus offering a novel perspective on dual-process theories and human cognitive flexibility.
Identifiers
38410645PMC10896373W4391832482What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.