In-Context Learning (ICL) is a technique by which language models make predictions based on examples provided in their input context. Previously, their context window size imposed a limit on the number of examples that can be shown, making example selection techniques crucial for identifying the maximally effective set of examples. However, the recent advent of Long Context Language Models (LCLMs) has significantly increased the number of examples that can be included in context, raising an important question of whether ICL performance in a many-shot regime is still sensitive to the method of sample selection. To answer this, we revisit these approaches in the context of LCLMs through extensive experiments on 18 datasets spanning 4 tasks. Surprisingly, we observe that sophisticated example selection techniques do not yield significant improvements over a simple random sample selection method. Instead, we discover that the advent of LCLMs has fundamentally shifted the challenge of ICL from that of selecting the most effective examples to that of collecting sufficient examples to fill the context window. Specifically, in certain datasets, including all available examples does not fully utilize the context window; however, by augmenting the examples in context with a simple data augmentation approach, we substantially improve ICL performance by 5%.

In this paper, we explore how to use a small amount of new data to update a task-oriented semantic parsing model when the desired output for some examples has changed. When making updates in this way, one potential problem that arises is the presence of conflicting data, or out-of-date labels in the original training set. To evaluate the impact of this understudied problem, we propose an experimental setup for simulating changes to a neural semantic parser. We show that the presence of conflicting data greatly hinders learning of an update, then explore several methods to mitigate its effect. Our multi-task and data selection methods lead to large improvements in model accuracy compared to a naive data-mixing strategy, and our best method closes 86% of the accuracy gap between this baseline and an oracle upper bound.