Cited by 58Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing TechniquesMultimodal Machine Learning Applications

LooGLE: Can Long-Context Language Models Understand Long Contexts?

Open access
Li, Jiaqi, Wang, Mengmeng, Zheng, Zilong, Zhang, Muhan·2024·Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) are typically limited to processing texts within contextwindow size, which has spurred significant research efforts into enhancing LLMs' longcontext understanding as well as developing high-quality benchmarks to evaluate the ability.However, prior datasets suffer from shortcomings like short length compared to the context window of modern LLMs; outdated documents that might have data leakage problems; and an emphasis on short dependency tasks only.In this paper, we present ooGLE , a Long Context Generic Language Evaluation benchmark.It features documents post-2022, with over 24,000 tokens per document and 6,000 newly generated questions spanning varying dependency ranges in diverse domains.Human annotators meticulously crafted over 1,100 high-quality question-answer (QA) pairs with thorough cross-validation for a most precise assessment of LLMs' long dependency capabilities.We conduct a comprehensive evaluation of representative LLMs on ooGLE .The results indicate that most LLMs have shockingly bad long context ability and fail to capture long dependencies in the context, even when their context window size is enough to fit the entire document.Our results shed light on enhancing the "true long-context understanding" ability of LLMs instead of merely enlarging their context window.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.859

Cites

0 citation errors · 2 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • LLMs exhibit significant limitations in long context scenarios, especially when relevant information appears in the middle of a prompt or when code completion requires cross-function or structural dependencies.

    “Despite increasingly longer context windows, LLMs exhibit significant limitations in long context scenarios, especially when relevant information appears in the middle of a prompt [19], [20] or when code completion requires crossfunction or structural dependencies [21], [61].”

    From LongCodeZip: Compress Long Context for Code Language Models (2025) · cites this paper as [20]

    The Discussion and §4.2 report substantial limitations in LLMs’ understanding of long texts despite extended context windows. The cited passages do not establish the more specific claims about information appearing in the middle of a prompt or code completion requiring cross-function or structural dependencies. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Modern LLMs suffer from "contextual forgetting": as the text length increases, model performance worsens and relevant information gets lost.

    “As is well known, modern LLMs suffer from “contextual forgetting”: as the text length increases, model performance worsens and relevant information gets lost [32,33,34].”
  • LLMs struggle to identify and utilize relevant content amid lengthy inputs.

    “Second, LLMs struggle to identify and utilize relevant content amid lengthy inputs [19], [20].”

    From LongCodeZip: Compress Long Context for Code Language Models (2025) · cites this paper as [20]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Research works printed but not linked: 14

  1. Zhengxiao Du, Yujie Qian, Xiao Liu, Ming Ding, Jiezhong Qiu, Zhilin Yang, and Jie Tang. 2022. Glm: General language model pretraining with autoregres- sive blank infilling. In Proceedings of the 60th An- nual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 320-335.
  2. Jacob Devlin Ming-Wei Chang Kenton and Lee Kristina Toutanova. 2019. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirec- tional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of naacL-HLT, volume 1, page 2.
  3. Takeshi Kojima, Shixiang Shane Gu, Machel Reid, Yu- taka Matsuo, and Yusuke Iwasawa. 2022. Large lan- guage models are zero-shot reasoners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:22199- 22213.
  4. Dacheng Li, Rulin Shao, Anze Xie, Ying Sheng, Lian- min Zheng, Joseph Gonzalez, Ion Stoica, Xuezhe Ma, and Hao Zhang. 2023a. How long can context length of open-source llms truly promise? In NeurIPS 2023 Workshop on Instruction Tuning and Instruction Fol- lowing.
  5. Chin-Yew Lin. 2004. ROUGE: A package for auto- matic evaluation of summaries. In Text Summariza- tion Branches Out, pages 74-81, Barcelona, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  6. Nelson F. Liu, Kevin Lin, John Hewitt, Ashwin Paran- jape, Michele Bevilacqua, Fabio Petroni, and Percy Liang. 2023a. Lost in the middle: How language models use long contexts. Transactions of the Asso- ciation for Computational Linguistics, 12:157-173.
  7. Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, et al. 2022. Training language models to follow instruc- tions with human feedback. Advances in neural in- formation processing systems, 35:27730-27744.
  8. Kaitao Song, Xu Tan, Tao Qin, Jianfeng Lu, and Tie- Yan Liu. 2020. Mpnet: Masked and permuted pre- training for language understanding. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:16857- 16867.
  9. Gaurav Suri, Lily R Slater, Ali Ziaee, and Morgan Nguyen. 2024. Do large language models show deci- sion heuristics similar to humans? a case study using gpt-3.5. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Gen- eral.
  10. Yi Tay, Mostafa Dehghani, Dara Bahri, and Donald Met- zler. 2022. Efficient transformers: A survey. ACM Computing Surveys, 55(6):1-28.
  11. Harsh Trivedi, Niranjan Balasubramanian, Tushar Khot, and Ashish Sabharwal. 2022. musique: Multi- hop questions via single-hop question composition. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 10:539-554.
  12. Szymon Tworkowski, Konrad Staniszewski, Mikołaj Pacek, Yuhuai Wu, Henryk Michalewski, and Piotr Miłoś. 2024. Focused transformer: Contrastive train- ing for context scaling. Advances in Neural Informa- tion Processing Systems, 36.
  13. Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, Denny Zhou, et al. 2022. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits rea- soning in large language models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:24824-24837.
  14. Lianmin Zheng, Wei-Lin Chiang, Ying Sheng, Siyuan Zhuang, Zhanghao Wu, Yonghao Zhuang, Zi Lin, Zhuohan Li, Dacheng Li, Eric Xing, et al. 2024. Judg- ing llm-as-a-judge with mt-bench and chatbot arena. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Li, J., Wang, M., Zheng, Z., & Zhang, M.
Affiliations
  • Beijing Institute for General Artificial Intelligence (CN)
  • Peking University (CN)
Venue
Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)
Published
2024
Pages
16304-16333
ISSN
0736-587X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4402671258
Cited by
55
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 26 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 3
FWCI
16.21
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
National Natural Science Foundation of China (62376031)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
Keywords
long-context understanding, large language models, context window size, benchmark dataset, question-answer pairs, LLM evaluation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review