Zero-Shot and Few-Shot Learning Techniques for Language Models

Browse all previously published AI Tutorials here.

Table of Contents

1. Overview

2. Recent Literature Review (2024-2025)

3. Industry Applications

4. Evaluation Metrics

5. Cost Considerations

6. Case Studies

7. Technical Implementation

8. Conclusion

Overview

Zero-shot and few-shot learning enable large language models (LLMs) to perform tasks with little or no task-specific training data. In zero-shot learning, the model is given only an instruction or query and must generalize using its pre-trained knowledge, without seeing any examples in the prompt (A Comprehensive Overview of Large Language Models). In few-shot learning (also called in-context learning), the prompt includes a handful of input-output examples (demonstrations) of the task, allowing the model to adapt and produce the desired output . Models like OpenAI’s GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 are remarkably adept at these modes – they can follow natural language instructions and solve problems they were never explicitly trained on, often with just a few examples or even none (HERE). This capability was first spotlighted by GPT-3, where scaling up model size led to striking improvements in task-agnostic performance from only a few prompt examples (Zero-shot and Few-shot Learning with Instruction-following LLMs for Claim Matching in Automated Fact-checking). GPT-4 further refines this, demonstrating strong performance on novel tasks under both zero-shot and few-shot prompts, significantly outperforming its predecessor GPT-3.5 in these settings .

Not only proprietary models, but also smaller open-source LLMs have embraced zero/few-shot techniques. By leveraging large-scale pre-training and instruction-tuning (fine-tuning on many tasks described by instructions), even smaller models can generalize to new tasks without labeled data. For example, Meta’s LLaMA models and Google’s FLAN-T5 (an instruction-tuned T5 model) are designed to follow prompts and achieve strong zero-shot results on many benchmarks (What is few shot prompting?). IBM’s recent Granite series and open models like Alpaca (Stanford) or Dolly (Databricks) are other examples that, through instruction-following fine-tunes, can handle tasks with minimal or no task-specific data. In essence, these models use the knowledge encoded during pre-training on vast corpora (and enhanced by instruction tuning) to infer the solution for unseen tasks. This means a well-crafted prompt can often replace or reduce explicit supervised training. Modern LLMs are thus often described as “universal predictors” that only need the task described to them (plus a few examples for clarity) to achieve reasonable performance . However, model size and training matter – larger models tend to generalize better in zero/few-shot settings ( Language Models are Few-Shot Learners - arXiv), whereas smaller models may require more prompt guidance or slight fine-tuning to reach similar accuracy.

Overall, zero-shot and few-shot learning have shifted the paradigm of how AI handles new problems. Instead of collecting thousands of labeled examples for every new task, we can now prompt the model with an instruction (zero-shot) or a few demonstrations (few-shot) and have it perform surprisingly well. This unlocks rapid prototyping of NLP tasks and makes it feasible to apply language models in domains where labeled data is scarce. The sections below explore recent research advances in these techniques, how they’re applied across industries, how we evaluate their performance, and strategies to maximize their value while controlling costs.

Recent Literature Review (2024-2025)

Recent research in 2024-2025 has made significant progress in understanding and improving zero-shot and few-shot learning for LLMs. Studies have evaluated how well instruction-tuned models perform on specialized tasks and how prompt strategies can be optimized:

• Performance vs. Specialized Models: Labrak et al. (2024) evaluated state-of-the-art instruction-following LLMs like ChatGPT, Flan-T5 U, and Alpaca on 13 clinical NLP tasks (e.g. medical Q&A, named entity recognition, relation extraction). They found these models approach the performance of domain-specific models in zero- and few-shot scenarios for many tasks ( A Zero-shot and Few-shot Study of Instruction-Finetuned Large Language Models Applied to Clinical and Biomedical Tasks). In particular, they perform extremely well on open-ended tasks like question-answering without having seen any task-specific examples . However, for structured classification tasks (e.g. identifying medical relations), the LLMs still underperformed a dedicated biomedical model (PubMedBERT) that had been fine-tuned on large medical datasets . This suggests that while zero-shot/few-shot LLMs are closing the gap, there remain niche areas where targeted fine-tuning outperforms prompt-based generalists.

• Prompt Engineering and Few-Shot Optimizations: A line of research focuses on how to select and format the few-shot examples to maximize performance. For instance, Xu et al. (2024) studied code generation with CodeLlama and found that choosing the right few-shot examples significantly improves coding accuracy (Does Few-Shot Learning Help LLM Performance in Code Synthesis?). They proposed methods to algorithmically select exemplars for prompts, which boosted CodeLlama’s success on the HumanEval+ coding benchmark. Similarly, an investigation into claim matching in fact-checking (Pisarevskaya & Zubiaga, 2025) showed that providing just 10 well-chosen examples in the prompt allowed a model (Gemini-1.5) to nearly match a fine-tuned classifier’s F1 score (95% vs 96.2%), and by combining prompt templates, the few-shot LLM even slightly outperformed the task-specific model (97.2% F1) (Zero-shot and Few-shot Learning with Instruction-following LLMs for Claim Matching in Automated Fact-checking). This is a remarkable result: with only a handful of demonstrations, a general LLM can rival a model trained on thousands of annotated instances.

• Zero-Shot Reasoning Enhancements: Even without examples, clever prompting can unlock better performance. One breakthrough was the “Chain-of-Thought” (CoT) prompting method, where the prompt encourages the model to reason step-by-step (e.g., by appending “Let’s think step by step.” before answering). Research has shown CoT prompting can turn LLMs into zero-shot reasoners, greatly improving their ability to solve complex problems without examples (Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasoners - arXiv). In late 2024, Li et al. introduced MMLU-Pro, a more challenging version of the Massive Multitask Language Understanding benchmark. They reported that GPT-4 (Turbo version) gained a 15.3% accuracy boost on MMLU-Pro by using chain-of-thought prompting, compared to direct zero-shot answers (MMLU-Pro: A More Robust and Challenging Multi-Task Language Understanding Benchmark). (On the original MMLU, CoT had a smaller effect, indicating that CoT is most useful on harder questions .) Such findings highlight that prompt technique innovations remain a key research area – even without new training data, how we prompt the model can yield substantial improvements in accuracy.

• Instruction Tuning & Alignment: Several papers in 2024 emphasize refining instruction-following behaviors to enhance zero-shot abilities. For example, an analysis by OpenAI (2023) noted that GPT-4’s superior few-shot performance is partly due to extensive alignment tuning (RLHF) that makes it better at following arbitrary instructions (HERE). Other works (e.g., “Prompt-Based Bias Calibration”, 2024) explore how to mitigate biases in zero-shot outputs by calibrating prompts (Zero-shot and Few-shot Learning with Instruction-following LLMs for Claim Matching in Automated Fact-checking). Additionally, new benchmarks have been proposed to stress-test zero-shot learning – beyond MMLU-Pro, researchers are crafting evaluation sets with ambiguities or nuanced instructions to see where zero-shot models break, spurring development of more robust prompting techniques.

In summary, the latest literature paints an encouraging picture: LLMs in 2024-2025 are inching closer to specialist models on many tasks through zero/few-shot learning ( A Zero-shot and Few-shot Study of Instruction-Finetuned Large Language Models Applied to Clinical and Biomedical Tasks). Careful prompt construction and example selection can yield state-of-the-art results without gradient-based fine-tuning . Nevertheless, research also identifies the current limits – certain domain-intensive classification tasks and reasoning-heavy questions still benefit from either fine-tuning or advanced prompting strategies . These studies collectively advance our understanding of how to better harness LLMs when labeled data is scarce, and they continue to inform best practices for deploying models like GPT-4, LLaMA, and others in real-world scenarios.

Industry Applications

Zero-shot and few-shot learning techniques are being leveraged across a wide range of industries, enabling applications that would be impractical if they required large labeled datasets. Below we highlight how various sectors are using LLMs with minimal training data:

• Healthcare: In medicine and biotech, LLMs are used to extract information from clinical texts, answer medical questions, and even assist in diagnoses – all without task-specific training. For example, instruction-tuned models have been applied to patient reports for tasks like identifying symptoms or diseases with only prompt guidance. Recent research shows that on many clinical NLP tasks, a general model like ChatGPT can achieve near state-of-the-art accuracy in a zero-shot setup ( A Zero-shot and Few-shot Study of Instruction-Finetuned Large Language Models Applied to Clinical and Biomedical Tasks). This means a doctor or researcher can ask the model questions about clinical notes or research literature and get useful answers without having built a custom model for that purpose. However, for highly specialized tasks (e.g., classifying radiology findings or lab results), experts sometimes still turn to fine-tuned domain models for a slight performance edge . Overall, zero/few-shot LLMs are proving valuable in healthcare for tasks such as summarizing medical records, triaging patient queries (e.g., symptom checker chatbots), and assisting with medical coding – significantly reducing the need for large annotated datasets in each of these cases.

• Finance: Financial institutions deal with diverse, text-heavy data (research reports, market news, customer communications), where zero-shot learning is a natural fit. Banks and fintech companies use LLMs to analyze documents and answer questions without explicit training on each document type. A prime example is Morgan Stanley’s deployment of GPT-4 to help advisors query the firm’s knowledge base. Rather than training a bespoke model for their tens of thousands of internal documents, they employ GPT-4 in a retrieval-augmented zero-shot fashion: advisors ask questions in plain language, relevant documents are fetched, and GPT-4 synthesizes an answer. This system can effectively answer any question from a corpus of 100,000+ financial documents without additional task-specific training (Shaping the future of financial services | OpenAI). The result has been faster research and decision-making, with over 98% of their advisory teams actively using the AI assistant for internal queries . Beyond knowledge search, finance applications include zero-shot text classification (e.g., tagging transaction descriptions or classifying the sentiment of news articles about a stock) and few-shot forecasting/explanation, where an analyst might give a few examples of revenue reports and ask the model to interpret a new one. These use cases benefit from LLMs’ ability to adapt to formal financial language and jargon through prompting alone, saving the enormous cost of labeling proprietary financial data.

• Legal: The legal industry has quickly adopted few-shot learning via LLMs to assist with drafting and analysis. Lawyers can provide a couple of examples of a legal argument or clause and have the model generate similar content adapted to a new case. Contract analysis and case law research are being accelerated by LLMs that have been prompted with just a few examples of what to look for. A notable case is the law firm Allen & Overy’s use of an AI assistant named Harvey. Harvey is built on GPT-3 and allows lawyers to create documents or perform legal research by simply instructing it in natural language, without needing a bespoke training set for each task (As Allen & Overy Deploys GPT-based Legal App Harvey Firmwide, Founders Say Other Firms Will Soon Follow | LawSites). During a trial, 3,500 lawyers at the firm asked Harvey around 40,000 queries, in areas ranging from contract summarization to regulatory compliance, with the system working across 50 languages and 250 legal subdomains out-of-the-box. This few-shot approach (often just providing the model the query and maybe a precedent example) has been described as a “game changer” – enabling lawyers to rapidly get first-draft answers and insights, which they then refine. Legal reasoning can be complex, so techniques like chain-of-thought prompting are used to have the model step through legal logic. While outputs are always reviewed by human experts, the reduction in time spent on routine drafting and research is substantial. Law firms and corporate legal departments are similarly exploring zero-shot document classification (e.g., identifying sensitive clauses in a pile of contracts with a single prompt) to streamline their workflow.

• Retail: E-commerce and retail companies are using zero-shot learning to deal with constantly changing product catalogs and customer feedback. A common application is product categorization – when new products are added to an online store, an LLM can assign categories and tags to each item by reading its description, without needing a predefined mapping for every possible product type. For instance, one retail tech company demonstrated using GPT-3 to generate taxonomy tags for products entirely in a zero-shot manner (Ecommerce Product Taxonomy & Categorization With GPT-3 | Width.ai). They fed the model a product’s title and description and prompted it to output appropriate category labels, without any training examples. The result was a set of accurate, descriptive tags that normally would have required manual creation or a trained classifier. Retailers are also leveraging zero-shot classification to analyze customer reviews and feedback – e.g., identifying emerging themes or sentiments in reviews of a new product, even if no labeled data exists for those themes. This helps in inventory management as well; as a PingCAP report notes, zero-shot models can automatically categorize new products and even predict demand trends from textual data, helping retailers avoid overstock or stockouts (How Zero-Shot Classification Enhances AI Models). In customer service, retail companies deploy LLMs in chatbots that handle queries they weren’t explicitly programmed for. By phrasing a customer’s question along with some context in a prompt, the model can often resolve issues without additional training. These capabilities improve scalability – an online store can quickly adapt to new products, languages, and customer issues by relying on the generalization power of few-shot learning.

• Other Sectors: Many other industries are finding creative uses for zero-shot and few-shot learning:

  • Education: Platforms like Khan Academy are integrating GPT-4 as a tutor that can answer students’ questions or provide hints on problems with no task-specific training for each new query. The model’s broad knowledge base and ability to follow instructional prompts allow it to function as a personalized teacher across subjects.

  • Marketing and Advertising: Copywriting assistants use few-shot prompts to learn a brand’s style from a few examples and then generate new ad copy or social media posts. This dramatically speeds up content creation while adhering to brand voice with minimal human-provided samples.

  • Customer Support: Companies employ LLMs to handle support tickets by training them with just a handful of example Q&A pairs (or none at all for common issues). The model can interpret a customer’s request and draft a relevant response pulling from policy documents, all through zero-shot retrieval and prompting.

  • Content Moderation: Social media and online communities are experimenting with zero-shot classifiers to detect harmful content. Rather than collecting thousands of labeled examples of every type of inappropriate content, moderators can prompt an LLM with the moderation policy and let it flag posts. Thanks to their pretraining, models can identify new variations of hate speech or harassment without having seen them before, though care is needed to calibrate and audit their judgments.

Across these sectors, the common theme is that LLMs with zero-shot/few-shot abilities reduce the need for task-specific data. Businesses can deploy NLP solutions in weeks instead of months, since the bottleneck of data labeling is greatly diminished. While fine-tuning is still done in some cases (especially when data is available and very high accuracy is required), many companies find that prompt-based use of models is the fastest way to production. As models like GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and their open-source analogues become more accessible, we can expect even wider adoption of these techniques in every industry that works with language data.

Evaluation Metrics

With models solving tasks via prompting instead of traditional training, evaluating their performance requires both standard metrics and some new considerations. Key evaluation practices and metrics for zero-shot and few-shot learning include:

• Benchmark Datasets: Researchers use established benchmarks to quantify zero-shot/few-shot performance. For natural language understanding, MMLU (Massive Multitask Language Understanding) is a popular benchmark covering 57 diverse subjects (from history to mathematics). Models are evaluated by their accuracy on multiple-choice questions, either zero-shot or with a few examples. For instance, GPT-4 scored about 85.5% on MMLU in a 3-shot setting, compared to around 70% for GPT-3.5 under the same conditions (HERE). This shows the gain from both the model upgrade and the few-shot prompting. Other benchmarks include SuperGLUE (a suite of language tasks), HELLASWAG (commonsense inference), BoolQ (Boolean questions), and domain-specific sets (like medical or legal QA benchmarks). Each benchmark often has defined evaluation modes: zero-shot (instruction only), 1-shot, 5-shot, etc., and sometimes fine-tuned results for comparison. The performance is typically measured in accuracy for classification tasks or F1/EM (exact match) for QA tasks. High few-shot scores on these benchmarks demonstrate a model’s ability to generalize.

• Task-Specific Metrics: Depending on the application, various metrics are used to assess zero/few-shot output quality:

  • For text classification (e.g., sentiment analysis done zero-shot), metrics like accuracy, precision/recall, and F1-score on a labeled test set are reported. Even though the model wasn’t trained on the task, we can still evaluate its predictions against ground truth labels.

  • For text generation tasks (summarization, translation) done in a few-shot manner, automatic metrics such as ROUGE or BLEU are used to compare the generated text to reference outputs. Human evaluation is also common, since zero-shot generations can be valid even if they don’t exactly match the reference.

  • For knowledge-based QA, accuracy or F1 on a benchmark like Natural Questions or TriviaQA is measured under a zero-shot prompt (where the model must pull facts from memory). The model’s ability to hit the correct answer without task-specific fine-tuning is a strong indicator of zero-shot prowess.

  • For reasoning tasks (math word problems, logic puzzles), metrics like solve rate are used. Researchers often evaluate these with and without chain-of-thought to see how much reasoning prompts improve accuracy (MMLU-Pro: A More Robust and Challenging Multi-Task Language Understanding Benchmark).

  • In multi-turn dialogue settings (like using a model as a chatbot with few-shot persona examples), metrics include conversational success rate or user satisfaction scores.

• Accuracy Trade-offs: One notable aspect of evaluation is comparing zero-shot, few-shot, and fine-tuned performance. Typically, a fine-tuned specialist model sets an upper bound, but few-shot LLMs have been closing the gap. For example, in a claim matching study, a fine-tuned classifier achieved 96.2% F1, while a few-shot GPT-based approach reached 95% F1 with 10 examples – a minor drop (Zero-shot and Few-shot Learning with Instruction-following LLMs for Claim Matching in Automated Fact-checking). Such comparisons illustrate the trade-off: zero/few-shot might lag a bit in accuracy, but it avoids the cost of training data. On some benchmarks, providing a few examples (few-shot) dramatically boosts accuracy over zero-shot. GPT-4 on the MMLU benchmark improves by several percentage points when moving from zero-shot to a 5-shot setting, and adding chain-of-thought can boost it further on complex questions . However, these improvements come at the cost of a longer prompt (more tokens to process, hence more computation per query). Evaluations thus consider not just raw accuracy, but also the efficiency (does the few-shot prompt’s accuracy gain justify the added latency?).

• Efficiency and Resource Metrics: In practice, especially for industry applications, we also evaluate throughput and latency of zero/few-shot systems. Few-shot prompts can be large (for example, 5 demonstrations each of several sentences, plus the query). This can consume a significant portion of the model’s context window and increase inference time. One way to quantify this is tokens per query and the resulting latency. If a zero-shot query is 20 tokens and a few-shot prompt is 200 tokens, the latter might be an order of magnitude slower. Therefore, benchmarks like HELM (Holistic Evaluation of Language Models) consider not just accuracy but also prompt processing speed and cost per query for different prompt lengths. Memory usage is another factor – a 8k or 32k token context (as in GPT-4) enables long few-shot prompts or multi-turn dialogues, but models with smaller context might not handle as many examples. So, evaluation includes checking if the model can even accept the needed prompt length.

• Robustness and Generalization: Metrics for zero-shot generalization often examine how well the model handles inputs very different from its training distribution. For example, cross-lingual evaluation is common: an English-trained model might be tested zero-shot on a task in Swahili or Hindi. The XNLI benchmark (cross-lingual NLI) is used to see if models can do zero-shot classification in languages they haven’t seen labeled data for. Another robustness check is adversarial or out-of-domain testing: e.g., evaluate a sentiment analysis prompt on jargon or novel slang to see if the zero-shot classification still holds up. If a few-shot prompt is over-fitted to the examples (a risk called prompt overfitting), its performance might drop on slightly varied inputs. Hence researchers sometimes report variance over different prompt phrasing or example choices. A truly robust few-shot method should yield consistently good results across reasonable prompt variations.

In evaluating zero/few-shot techniques, it’s also important to use human judgement for certain tasks. Especially in open-ended generation (like drafting an email reply with zero-shot), automated metrics might not capture nuances like politeness or factual correctness. Human evaluators are brought in to rate outputs for correctness, relevance, and fluency. OpenAI’s evals for GPT-4, for example, included having experts compare the model’s zero-shot answers to human answers on tricky questions (Shaping the future of financial services | OpenAI). They also looked at preference judgments – given two responses (perhaps one zero-shot, one few-shot), which does a human prefer? Such evaluations complement quantitative metrics to give a full picture.

In summary, zero-shot and few-shot learning are assessed using many of the same metrics as traditional models – accuracy, F1, BLEU, etc. – but with careful attention to prompt design and computational factors. Benchmarks like MMLU, SuperGLUE, and domain-specific tests provide a yardstick for performance (HERE), while new evaluation methods examine how robust and efficient prompt-based learning is in practice. As these models are used in more critical applications, evaluation also increasingly considers aspects like factuality (especially for zero-shot generation) and fairness/bias (since a prompt might elicit unwanted biases). All these metrics and considerations ensure that zero/few-shot techniques maintain high quality and reliability when deployed.

Cost Considerations

One of the biggest motivations for zero-shot and few-shot learning is reducing the cost and effort of labeling data. For startups and enterprises alike, these techniques can translate into substantial savings in both data annotation and development time. Here we discuss strategies to minimize labeling costs while still achieving high model performance, especially under resource constraints:

• Leverage Pre-trained Knowledge: The fundamental cost-saver is that a large pre-trained model (like GPT-3.5, GPT-4, or an open-source LLM) comes with a vast amount of knowledge and linguistic capability out-of-the-box. Instead of collecting task-specific examples, companies can rely on the model’s prior training on the internet, books, code, etc. and simply prompt it appropriately. This turns a potentially months-long data collection process into a prompt engineering problem solvable in days. As an Oxford report emphasizes, zero-shot classification “eliminates the need for labeled data for every possible class”, which markedly lowers the cost and effort of adding new classes or handling new domains (How Zero-Shot Classification Enhances AI Models) . In dynamic environments (a startup pivoting to a new product line, or an enterprise facing new document types), this flexibility is invaluable.

• Instruction Tuning on Broad Data: Many open-source models are released already instruction-tuned on large, mixed datasets (e.g. FLAN was tuned on 1.8K tasks). Using such a model can be seen as “pre-paid” training – you benefit from the fact that others have fine-tuned the model to follow instructions generally. Smaller organizations can capitalize on these models (which are often free or cheap to use) instead of training their own from scratch. For example, Meshkin et al. (2024) implemented a series of open-source LLMs inside a regulatory agency and found some achieved performance comparable to models trained on thousands of samples (Harnessing large language models' zero-shot and few-shot learning capabilities for regulatory research | Request PDF). By selecting a model that had broad knowledge, they avoided labeling data for their specific task (extracting info from drug labels). In one case, they solved a real-world task with 0 training examples – the model identified relevant factors in over 700k sentences with 78.5% accuracy, entirely zero-shot . This demonstrates that investing in a good base model (or using a community-provided one) can negate the need for a custom dataset in many scenarios, saving not only labeling cost but also the engineering cost of a training pipeline.

• Active Learning and Few-Shot Fine-Tuning: In situations where some labeling is unavoidable (e.g., the task is very niche or the model’s zero-shot performance is just shy of acceptable), a good strategy is active learning combined with few-shot fine-tuning. Instead of labeling a large corpus upfront, you iteratively label a small batch of the most informative or problematic examples, fine-tune the model or adjust the prompt, and repeat. The model’s few-shot capability means it might only need a handful of examples to make a big leap in performance. Using techniques like LoRA (Low-Rank Adaptation) or other parameter-efficient fine-tuning, one can fine-tune an LLM on, say, 100 examples at a fraction of the cost of full-model training. These lightweight adapters require far less compute (which is crucial for startups with limited GPU resources) and can often be trained on a single GPU. The key is to focus labeling effort where it yields the highest gain – the model’s errors can guide what examples to label next (active learning loop). This drastically reduces the total number of examples needed to reach production-level performance, as compared to a naive approach of labeling thousands of random samples.

• Few-Shot Prompt Libraries (Reuse and Sharing): Another cost-efficient tactic is to create a library of high-quality prompt exemplars that can be reused across tasks. For example, a company might develop a set of few-shot prompts for “summarize an email thread” or “classify sentiment of a review” and store these. When a new but related task arises (maybe summarize a Slack chat, or classify sentiment of forum comments), they can retrieve the closest prompt from the library and adapt it with minimal editing, instead of starting from scratch or collecting new data. Some engineering teams maintain internal prompt banks and even build tools to automatically suggest relevant examples from past prompts (a form of Retrieval-Augmented Generation focused on prompts). IBM’s documentation suggests using a vector store to embed and retrieve prompt examples relevant to a new query, which can automate part of prompt construction (What is few shot prompting?). By reusing prompts, organizations capitalize on prior prompt-engineering investment rather than labeling new datasets. This approach turns prompt design into a one-time cost that amortizes over many deployments.

• Synthetic Data Generation: An emerging strategy to minimize manual labeling is using LLMs themselves to generate training data. This can be done in a few ways:

  • Data Augmentation: If you have a handful of real examples, you can prompt the LLM to create similar but new examples. For instance, with 5 labeled customer complaints, ask the model to invent 50 more in a similar style. These synthetic examples (possibly vetted quickly by a human or filtered for quality) can then be used to fine-tune a smaller model or to enlarge the few-shot prompt pool.

  • Self-Training (Teacher-Student): Use a powerful model (like GPT-4) as a “teacher” to label a large unlabeled dataset, then train a cheaper model (like a 1B-parameter model you can host) on those outputs. This leverages the teacher’s zero-shot skill to transfer knowledge. In fact, research from late 2023 showed that one can distill an LLM’s reasoning into a smaller model by having the LLM generate explanations and answers for many problems, and training a smaller model on that synthetic corpus. The cost here is primarily the API calls or compute for the teacher model – which can be far less than paying human annotators. OpenAI’s own experience reflects this: they used GPT-4 in a few-shot capacity to help label content moderation data, speeding up the development of their moderation models (HERE). GPT-4 could quickly classify content according to policy and even highlight where the policy needed clarifications, thus reducing the burden on human moderators and labelers .

  • Instruction Generation: Instead of labeling data, another approach (used in the Self-Instruct and Alpaca projects) is to have the LLM generate prompts and responses by itself, essentially creating new Q&A pairs or tasks that can fine-tune the model to follow instructions better. This bootstrapping technique allowed Stanford’s Alpaca model to achieve strong instruction-following by spending <$500 on OpenAI API calls to generate training examples, as opposed to thousands of dollars on annotation.

• Choosing the Right Model & Infrastructure: Cost is also about computational resources. A startup may not afford to run GPT-4 for every request, but they could deploy a smaller 7B or 13B parameter model that, with the right prompting, achieves acceptable performance at a fraction of the cost. Smaller models are cheaper to host (or can run on CPUs or a single GPU). The trade-off is they might need more prompt tuning or might not be as generally capable zero-shot. To address this, companies sometimes adopt a hybrid approach: use a small open-source model for most queries and fall back to a larger model via API for the hardest cases. This way, the expensive model is only used when absolutely necessary. Over time, as open models improve (and they have been rapidly closing the gap), the dependence on proprietary models (which incur usage costs) can be minimized. This strategy was suggested in an industry analysis noting that smaller organizations and startups can now leverage zero-shot methods with pre-trained models without the prohibitive costs of large-scale labeling (How Zero-Shot Classification Enhances AI Models). Essentially, spend on compute (which gets cheaper over time) instead of on manual labeling (which does not scale as easily).

• Human in the Loop for Quality Control: While zero/few-shot systems reduce labeling upfront, it’s wise to budget for human evaluation and refinement, especially in high-stakes applications. The cost consideration here is to use human expertise efficiently. Instead of having people label thousands of training examples, have them review a smaller number of the model’s outputs periodically to ensure it’s performing well. If issues are found, a few illustrative corrections can be provided to the model via new examples or prompt adjustments. This targeted feedback loop can often correct model errors with far less effort than exhaustive labeling. It’s a way of applying human oversight where it’s most needed (verifying outputs) rather than blanket labeling everything. Many companies adopting GPT-based solutions start with a period of side-by-side comparison (human vs model on some tasks) to identify any consistent mistakes the model makes; then they either fine-tune on those specific cases or adjust the prompt. This approach contains the cost by focusing human effort smartly.

In conclusion, zero-shot and few-shot learning offer a path to “cheaper AI” by fundamentally reducing the dependence on large labeled datasets. Organizations can combine the above strategies – using powerful pre-trained models, reusing prompts, generating synthetic data, fine-tuning lightly when needed – to achieve high performance with a fraction of the data prep costs of traditional methods. This is especially empowering for startups and teams with limited budgets, allowing them to deploy AI features that previously only data-rich tech giants could. That said, it’s important to continuously monitor model outputs; while you save on labeling upfront, you should invest in evaluation to ensure the model’s zero-shot generalizations remain accurate and fair as it encounters new inputs.

Case Studies

To illustrate the impact of zero-shot and few-shot learning in real-world settings, here are several case studies of businesses and organizations that have successfully implemented these techniques:

• Morgan Stanley (Finance – Knowledge Assistant): Morgan Stanley Wealth Management built an internal AI assistant for its financial advisors powered by GPT-4, without fine-tuning it on their data. Advisors ask questions in natural language (e.g., “What are the key points of this investment strategy paper?”), and GPT-4 provides answers sourced solely from the firm’s internal research content. By using retrieval augmented zero-shot prompting, the assistant can answer “effectively any question” from a corpus of 100k+ documents (Shaping the future of financial services | OpenAI). This eliminated the need to train separate models for each type of document or query. The result has been a dramatic efficiency boost – advisors get instant answers instead of manually searching through documents – and rapid adoption (over 98% of advisor teams use it regularly) . This case demonstrates that even in a highly regulated domain like finance, a well-prompted large model can operate within a closed data environment to great effect, saving countless hours of manual research.

• Allen & Overy with Harvey (Legal – Document Drafting and Research): Allen & Overy, a leading global law firm, deployed an AI platform called Harvey to assist 3,500+ lawyers in drafting and reviewing legal documents. Harvey is built on OpenAI’s GPT models and works via few-shot prompting: lawyers simply describe what they need (or give an example of a clause), and Harvey produces outputs like contract drafts, memos, or research summaries (As Allen & Overy Deploys GPT-based Legal App Harvey Firmwide, Founders Say Other Firms Will Soon Follow | LawSites). During its pilot, A&O attorneys submitted around 40,000 queries to Harvey, asking for things like first-draft answers to client questions or initial versions of contract sections. The model handled tasks across 250 legal use cases in multiple languages without any task-specific training – essentially operating as a zero-shot legal assistant with a bit of prompt guidance. Lawyers then reviewed and refined its outputs, but reported significant time savings. This case is a prime example of few-shot LLM usage in a complex field: rather than train a custom model on proprietary legal data (which would be immense), they leveraged GPT’s capabilities by instructing it on-the-fly. The success at Allen & Overy has spurred other law firms to follow suit, integrating generative AI assistants to augment their legal services.

• U.S. FDA – Regulatory Document Analysis (Healthcare/Regulatory): Researchers at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) explored using open-source LLMs on internal regulatory documents to avoid sending sensitive data to external APIs (Harnessing large language models' zero-shot and few-shot learning capabilities for regulatory research | Request PDF). They implemented models like FLAN-T5 and LLaMA on a secure network and evaluated their zero-shot/few-shot performance on tasks such as extracting clinical pharmacology information from drug labels. Impressively, they found that some smaller open models, with few-shot prompting, achieved performance on par with or better than traditional NLP models that had required thousands of labeled examples . In one real-world application, an open-source LLM was tasked with finding “intrinsic factors that affect drug exposure” across a large set of regulatory documents – a task with no existing labeled dataset. With zero-shot prompting (just a clear instruction), the model reached 78.5% accuracy on identifying relevant statements . This case study underscores the power of zero-shot learning in government and healthcare settings, where data is abundant but labels are scarce. By using LLMs internally, the FDA avoided both the cost of annotation and any privacy concerns, while still gaining a tool that accelerates their document review process.

• E-commerce Platform – Product Categorization with GPT-3 (Retail): An e-commerce startup faced the challenge of organizing a rapidly growing product catalog without a dedicated taxonomy team. They turned to GPT-3’s zero-shot learning capabilities. Instead of manually labeling thousands of products or training a classifier, they fed each product’s title and description to GPT-3 with a prompt like: “Assign categories and tags to this product.” With zero-shot prompting (no example products given), GPT-3 was able to generate sensible category labels for items it had never seen (Ecommerce Product Taxonomy & Categorization With GPT-3 | Width.ai). For example, given a description of a new style of running shoes, the model might output tags like “Footwear > Athletic Shoes, Running, Men’s”. These tags were then reviewed quickly by staff and fed into the website. The quality was high enough that the company integrated GPT-3 into their listing workflow, reducing a process that took a human team several minutes per product to an automated step taking seconds. This use case shows how even smaller firms can harness large models via prompting to automate labor-intensive tasks like taxonomy creation, with minimal overhead.

• OpenAI Content Moderation – Few-Shot Classifier Bootstrap (Tech/AI): OpenAI’s own deployment of GPT-4 for content moderation is a case study in using few-shot learning to save labeling effort. Rather than manually labeling vast amounts of potentially harmful content to train a classifier, they prompted GPT-4 with the content policy and a few examples of each category of violation. GPT-4 demonstrated high accuracy in classifying content in a few-shot setup, effectively acting as a moderation model itself (HERE). In fact, they used GPT-4 to help develop and refine their moderation guidelines – by seeing where the model was confused, they identified ambiguous policy areas and clarified them . GPT-4 then helped label a smaller training dataset which was used to train a simpler moderation model. This case highlights a meta-application: using a powerful LLM in a few-shot way to bootstrap another AI system. The outcome was a faster development cycle for content filters and a reduction in human moderation workload, thanks to the zero/few-shot proficiency of GPT-4 in understanding content rules.

Each of these case studies showcases a slightly different way to apply zero-shot or few-shot learning: as an interactive assistant (Morgan Stanley), a drafting tool (Harvey), an internal analysis engine (FDA), an automation tool (product categorization), or a bootstrap for AI development (OpenAI moderation). In all cases, the organizations avoided large-scale labeling or task-specific model training, leading to faster deployment and immediate ROI. They also illustrate best practices like keeping a human in the loop (for legal and moderation tasks) and using domain context (e.g., providing a knowledge base for GPT-4 to search in finance) to ensure the model’s outputs are accurate and trustworthy. These successes are encouraging many others to adopt similar approaches, accelerating the spread of LLM solutions across industries without the traditionally high cost of building AI capabilities.

Technical Implementation

Implementing zero-shot and few-shot learning techniques for language models has become increasingly accessible thanks to high-level libraries and APIs. In this section, we provide some guidance and code snippets (in Python) that demonstrate key techniques:

1. Using Pre-trained Models for Zero-Shot Classification: One common use-case is classification without training data (zero-shot classification). Hugging Face’s transformers library provides a convenient pipeline for this, leveraging a model like BART or RoBERTa fine-tuned on Natural Language Inference (NLI) to perform zero-shot classification (facebook/bart-large-mnli - Hugging Face). The idea (as explained in Hugging Face docs) is to phrase classification as an NLI task: for each candidate label, the model checks if “input entails label.” Here’s how you can do it:

from transformers import pipeline

## Load a zero-shot classification pipeline (by default uses facebook/bart-large-mnli)
classifier = pipeline("zero-shot-classification")

text = "This new smartphone has a great screen and battery life."
candidate_labels = ["positive", "negative", "neutral"]

result = classifier(text, candidate_labels)
print(result)

In the above code, we did not provide any training data or examples – the model will output a score for each label (e.g., it will likely classify the text as “positive” with highest score). Under the hood, the model was pre-trained on general NLI, so it can judge how well the text fits the candidate label descriptions without having seen domain-specific examples (facebook/bart-large-mnli - Hugging Face). This approach can be used for topic classification, sentiment analysis, intent recognition, and more. For multi-label classification (where multiple labels can apply), you can set multi_label=True in the pipeline call. Zero-shot classification via such pipelines allows you to immediately use a powerful language model for your custom labels – e.g., classifying support tickets as “bug”, “feature request”, or “other” by just plugging those labels into the candidate_labels list.

2. Few-Shot Prompting for Generation Tasks: Few-shot learning often involves constructing a prompt that includes a few demonstrations. Let’s say we want to do sentiment analysis via generation (perhaps using an instruction-tuned model like FLAN-T5 or GPT-3 style model) – we can provide a couple of example reviews with their sentiments, and then ask the model to continue for a new review. Using an open-source model for illustration:

from transformers import AutoTokenizer, AutoModelForSeq2SeqLM

## Load an instruction-tuned seq2seq model (Flan-T5 base in this example)
tokenizer = AutoTokenizer.from_pretrained("google/flan-t5-base")
model = AutoModelForSeq2SeqLM.from_pretrained("google/flan-t5-base")

## Construct a few-shot prompt with examples
prompt = (
    "Review: I absolutely loved the new phone, it’s fantastic!\nSentiment: Positive\n\n"
    "Review: The phone is okay, it works but nothing impressive.\nSentiment: Neutral\n\n"
    "Review: I am really disappointed with this phone, it has so many bugs.\nSentiment:"
)

inputs = tokenizer(prompt, return_tensors="pt")
outputs = model.generate(**inputs, max_new_tokens=5)
completion = tokenizer.decode(outputs[0], skip_special_tokens=True)
print(completion)

In this prompt, we gave two examples of a review followed by a Sentiment label. The third review is a negative one, and we stop right after Sentiment: – the model needs to generate the sentiment. A well-performing model will output something like “Negative”. This is in-context few-shot learning: the model infers the pattern from the prompt and applies it to the new review. We used a smaller model here for demonstration, but the same prompt format works with GPT-3.5/4 via the OpenAI API (you would supply the prompt as the conversation). Notably, instruction-tuned models like FLAN-T5 know to follow the prompt pattern closely, whereas a raw model like GPT-2 might not reliably do this without fine-tuning. The above code can be adapted to any text transformation task – just provide a few input-output pairs in the prompt. For instance, for translation: “English: ... \nFrench: ...” examples. For question-answering: “Question: ...? \nAnswer: ...” examples.

3. Retrieval-Augmented Few-Shot Prompting: As mentioned earlier, sometimes we maintain a collection of examples and want to dynamically choose the most relevant ones for the prompt (especially when the context window is limited). Libraries like LangChain or LlamaIndex facilitate this by storing examples (or documents) in a vector database and retrieving those that are semantically similar to the query. While a full code for that is beyond our scope here, the concept is straightforward: embed all candidate examples, embed the new query, find nearest examples, and prepend them to the query as context. This can significantly improve accuracy and consistency (What is few shot prompting?). For instance, if you have a bank of customer support Q&A pairs, you can fetch the top 3 that resemble a user’s new question and include them as demonstrations in the prompt for the model to follow. This way, the model gets very task-relevant few-shot examples each time, without manual prompt tuning for each query.

4. Model Serving Considerations: In production, zero-shot and few-shot usage may require some engineering. Prompts can be quite long (hundreds or even thousands of tokens if you include multiple examples or a long instruction). You should be mindful of the model’s max sequence length. GPT-3.5 supports ~4K tokens, GPT-4 can go up to 8K or 32K tokens in some versions. Many open models (like older GPT-J or LLaMA) support 2K or 4K tokens. If your prompt + output can exceed that, you may need to truncate or use a model with larger context. Additionally, prompt processing can be slow on CPU, so for latency-sensitive applications, running the model on a GPU or using accelerated inference (e.g., ONNX or INT8 quantization for smaller models) is beneficial.

5. Few-Shot Fine-Tuning with PEFT: If you find that pure prompting isn’t enough (maybe the model is close but not at the accuracy you need), you can do a low-cost fine-tuning with a few examples. Using Hugging Face’s PEFT (Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning) library, you can apply methods like LoRA or adapters to slightly adjust the model based on a small training set, without full retraining. This typically involves adding and training a few small weight matrices (with perhaps tens of thousands of parameters) while keeping the main model weights frozen. A typical code pattern would be:

from peft import LoraConfig, get_peft_model
peft_config = LoraConfig(task_type="SEQ_2_SEQ_LM", inference_mode=False,
                         r=16, lora_alpha=32, lora_dropout=0.1)
peft_model = get_peft_model(model, peft_config)
## Then fine-tune peft_model on your small dataset (e.g., with Trainer or manual training loop)

After training, peft_model can be used like the original model but will incorporate the new knowledge from your examples. The advantage is that the training is fast (since so few parameters update) and memory-efficient. This way, if pure prompting and existing knowledge get you, say, 85% accuracy, a PEFT fine-tune on a few dozen labeled examples might push that to 90+%, bridging the gap in a cost-effective manner.

In practice, many real-world implementations combine these approaches: they start with zero-shot prompting to see if the model can handle a task at all, then try adding a few in-context examples to improve reliability, and if needed, apply a light fine-tune or prompt retrieval mechanism to hit the target quality. Throughout development, monitoring and evaluation are key – printing out model outputs for test queries, checking them against expectations – since prompt-based behavior can sometimes be unexpected. Fortunately, the iterative cycle is very quick: if you see a mistake, you can often fix it by editing the prompt or adding one more example, and immediately test again. This fast loop is a stark contrast to the days or weeks it can take to collect and train on new data in classical machine learning.

Summary of Tools and Resources: Frameworks like Hugging Face Transformers (for pipelines and model access), OpenAI API (for GPT-3.5/GPT-4 with ease of use), and libraries such as LangChain (for chaining LLM calls and retrieval) are extremely useful for implementing these techniques. There are also open-source projects specifically for few-shot learning – for example, bigscience/T0 on Hugging Face is a model explicitly fine-tuned for zero-shot tasks (What is few shot prompting?), and facebook/bart-large-mnli is a model adept at zero-shot NLI classification (facebook/bart-large-mnli - Hugging Face). Utilizing these pre-trained resources can save a lot of effort. Official blogs and docs (like the Hugging Face blog on zero-shot classification, or OpenAI’s cookbook recipes for few-shot prompting) provide additional examples and best practices.

By combining the right model with effective prompting and optionally a bit of fine-tuning, you can deploy powerful NLP capabilities without large custom datasets. The code snippets above scratch the surface, but they should give a sense of how straightforward it is to get started with zero-shot and few-shot learning using popular Python frameworks.

Conclusion

Zero-shot and few-shot learning techniques have revolutionized the way we build language model applications, turning the traditional paradigm of “collect data, then train model” on its head. With models like GPT-3.5 and GPT-4, we now often deploy the model first and feed it tasks in plain language, leveraging its broad knowledge and flexibility. This report has covered how these models (and their open-source counterparts) achieve generalization from minimal examples, the cutting-edge research improving our understanding of prompt-based learning, and the wide array of use cases across industries that have benefited from this approach.

We have seen that large language models can perform surprisingly well with no task-specific data – for instance, answering questions from a new domain or classifying novel inputs – provided the task is described clearly to them (Zero-shot and Few-shot Learning with Instruction-following LLMs for Claim Matching in Automated Fact-checking). When a bit more accuracy is needed, giving a handful of examples in context can often bridge the gap, guiding the model to the correct output format or style. Key breakthroughs in 2024 and 2025, such as advanced prompt engineering strategies and evaluation benchmarks, are pushing the envelope, showing that even complex reasoning tasks can be handled in a zero-shot way by eliciting latent capabilities of LLMs (MMLU-Pro: A More Robust and Challenging Multi-Task Language Understanding Benchmark).

In practical terms, zero-shot/few-shot learning is enabling companies to do more with less: less data, less time, and ultimately less cost. Startups can incorporate NLP features without a massive data labeling effort, and enterprises can adapt AI systems to new problems on the fly. As highlighted, methods like prompt reuse, synthetic data generation, and small-scale fine-tuning further enhance the cost-effectiveness of these techniques. Importantly, this doesn’t come at the expense of performance – indeed, with the latest models and methods, prompt-based approaches are catching up with fully supervised approaches on many benchmarks .

That said, zero-shot and few-shot learning are not a silver bullet for every scenario. Challenges remain in ensuring the reliability of model outputs (since a model can sometimes be confidently wrong, especially in zero-shot settings) and in handling tasks requiring very precise or technical knowledge that wasn’t present in the training data. Evaluation and human oversight are crucial components when deploying these systems, as we discussed. There are also emerging concerns like prompt security (preventing malicious instructions) and model biases that need careful handling – areas where ongoing research is active.

Looking forward, we can expect continued convergence of techniques: prompt-based learning combined with lightweight fine-tuning and retrieval augmentation, all aimed at getting the most out of language models with minimal new data. As models grow in capability (e.g., future GPT-5 or new multimodal models) and understand instructions even better, zero-shot learning might become the default for many applications, with model training happening mostly at the foundational level. This will make AI development more about designing the right instructions and workflows rather than collecting mountains of examples.

In conclusion, zero-shot and few-shot learning have opened up a more agile and accessible era in AI. They empower practitioners to quickly prototype and deploy solutions across healthcare, finance, legal, retail, and beyond, simply by leveraging the general intelligence already present in large language models. By staying abreast of the latest research findings ( A Zero-shot and Few-shot Study of Instruction-Finetuned Large Language Models Applied to Clinical and Biomedical Tasks) and using best practices in prompt engineering and evaluation, AI professionals can continue to push the boundaries of what’s possible with minimal data. The case studies and code examples provided offer a template for innovation – a glimpse of how to tap into the power of LLMs in resource-constrained settings. As we integrate these techniques responsibly, we move toward AI systems that are not only powerful and efficient but also flexible enough to meet the ever-changing needs of the real world.