Iterative Amortized Inference: Unifying In-Context Learning and Learned Optimizers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modern learning systems increasingly rely on amortized learning - the idea of reusing computation or inductive biases shared across tasks to enable rapid generalization to novel problems. This principle spans a range of approaches, including meta-learning, in-context learning, prompt tuning, learned optimizers and more. While motivated by similar goals, these approaches differ in how they encode and leverage task-specific information, often provided as in-context examples. In this work, we propose a unified framework which describes how such methods differ primarily in the aspects of learning they amortize - such as initializations, learned updates, or predictive mappings - and how they incorporate task data at inference. We introduce a taxonomy that categorizes amortized models into parametric, implicit, and explicit regimes, based on whether task adaptation is externalized, internalized, or jointly modeled. Building on this view, we identify a key limitation in current approaches: most methods struggle to scale to large datasets because their capacity to process task data at inference (e.g., context length) is often limited. To address this, we propose iterative amortized inference, a class of models that refine solutions step-by-step over mini-batches, drawing inspiration from stochastic optimization. Our formulation bridges optimization-based meta-learning with forward-pass amortization in models like LLMs, offering a scalable and extensible foundation for general-purpose task adaptation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".