The DOI matches its DataCite record; 52 of the 63 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 6 are not checked yet.
Large Language Models Can Be Easily Distracted by Irrelevant Context
Open accessAbstract
Large language models have achieved impressive performance on various natural language processing tasks. However, so far they have been evaluated primarily on benchmarks where all information in the input context is relevant for solving the task. In this work, we investigate the distractibility of large language models, i.e., how the model problem-solving accuracy can be influenced by irrelevant context. In particular, we introduce Grade-School Math with Irrelevant Context (GSM-IC), an arithmetic reasoning dataset with irrelevant information in the problem description. We use this benchmark to measure the distractibility of cutting-edge prompting techniques for large language models, and find that the model performance is dramatically decreased when irrelevant information is included. We also identify several approaches for mitigating this deficiency, such as decoding with self-consistency and adding to the prompt an instruction that tells the language model to ignore the irrelevant information.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“By disclosing task intent at the input side and relying on surface-form matching at the output side, the evaluation increasingly reflects models' adaptation to task prompts and generation styles rather than their ability to retain and apply conversational context.”
From Locomo-Plus: Beyond-Factual Cognitive Memory Evaluation Framework for LLM Agents (2026) · cites this paper as Shi et al., 2023
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Longer prompts introduce irrelevant and redundant information, which can weaken LLMs' performance (Shi et al., 2023), as illustrated in Figure 1a.”
From LongLLMLingua: Accelerating and Enhancing LLMs in Long Context Scenarios via Prompt Compression (2024) · cites this paper as Shi et al., 2023
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“However, indiscriminately retrieving and incorporating a fixed number of retrieved passages, regardless of whether retrieval is necessary, or passages are relevant, diminishes LM versatility or can lead to unhelpful response generation.”
From CareerX: A Retrieval-Augmented Generation Framework for Personalized AI-Driven Career Guidance (2023) · cites this paper as Shi et al., 2023
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Prompting approaches can reduce the sensitivity of CoT explanations to input perturbations and stereotypes (Shaikh et al., 2022;Ganguli et al., 2023;Shi et al., 2023), which our findings on prompting for debiasing corroborate.”
From Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Prompting (2023) · cites this paper as Shi et al., 2023
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Existing agents struggle with the capability to perform self-reflection [69, 41]. That is to say they tend to take all information/feedback and do not know how to filter out or correct irrelevant, incorrect, or misleading information [84, 107].”
From Agentless: Demystifying LLM-based Software Engineering Agents (2024) · cites this paper as [84]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“most LLM evaluation work selects a prompt x, run the model once, and interprets the resulting output y as the model's behavior under that prompt (Shi et al., 2023;Zhu et al., 2024;Cao et al., 2024).”
From Within-Model vs Between-Prompt Variability in Large Language Models for Creative Tasks (2026) · cites this paper as Shi et al., 2023
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Small changes in input tokens can drastically alter model outputs, indicating a strong token bias and suggesting that these models are highly sensitive and fragile (Jiang et al., 2024; Shi et al., 2023).”
From GSM-Symbolic: Understanding the Limitations of Mathematical Reasoning in Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as Shi et al., 2023
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Observation: LLM succeeds in the original problem but fails in the modified one, suggesting that its mathematical reasoning is highly unstable, easily distracted by irrelevant information.”
From Large Language Model Reasoning Failures (2026) · cites this paper as Shi et al., 2023
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Recent empirical experiments have shown that LLM performance decreases with less effective information in a prompt (Bai et al., 2023; Li et al., 2023a; Shi et al., 2023).”
From LongLLMLingua: Accelerating and Enhancing LLMs in Long Context Scenarios via Prompt Compression (2024) · cites this paper as Shi et al., 2023
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“as incorporating irrelevant context can distract the LLM and degrade response quality (Liu et al., 2024b; Shi et al., 2023).”
From In Prospect and Retrospect: Reflective Memory Management for Long-term Personalized Dialogue Agents (2025) · cites this paper as Shi et al., 2023
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“as incorporating irrelevant context can distract the LLM and degrade response quality (Liu et al., 2024b; Shi et al., 2023).”
From In Prospect and Retrospect: Reflective Memory Management for Long-term Personalized Dialogue Agents (2025) · cites this paper as Shi et al., 2023
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Robustness benchmarks systematically perturb prompts via paraphrasing, rephrasing, or adversarial noise injection (Zhu et al., 2024;Shi et al., 2023;Cao et al., 2024), reporting dramatic performance swings despite the underlying task remaining unchanged.”
From Within-Model vs Between-Prompt Variability in Large Language Models for Creative Tasks (2026) · cites this paper as Shi et al., 2023
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“GSM-IC (Shi et al., 2023) shows that irrelevant context can impair LLM performance, focusing on prompting techniques.”
From GSM-Symbolic: Understanding the Limitations of Mathematical Reasoning in Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as Shi et al., 2023
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“We find that the alignment with human data is better without the full paper context (likely due to the phenomenon that LLMs are easily distracted by too much irrelevant context (Shi et al., 2023)), except for Verifiability , which could benefit from additional context.”
From The Good, the Bad and the Constructive: Automatically Measuring Peer Review's Utility for Authors (2025) · cites this paper as Shi et al., 2023
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Language Models are Few-Shot Learners
Brown, T. B., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J., Dhariwal, P., Neelakantan, A., Shyam, P., Sastry, G., Askell, A., et al. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2005.14165 · Cited by 23,372 · cited 2×
“Prompting large language models performs decently well in a variety of domains (Brown et al., 2020; Chowdhery et al., 2022, inter alia ).”
BackgroundMethodExploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformer
Raffel, C., Shazeer, N., Roberts, A., Lee, K., Narang, S., Matena, M., Zhou, Y., Li, W., & Liu, P. J. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1910.10683 · Cited by 10,929 · cited 2×
“In particular, Li et al. (2022) evaluated T5 (Raffel et al., 2020) and PaLM (Chowd-hery et al., 2022) with few-shot prompts, and proposed knowledge-aware finetuning that finetunes the model on problems with counterfactual and irrelevant context, which strengthens the model robustness to noisy context.”
BackgroundChain-Of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models
Wei, J., Wang, X., Schuurmans, D., Bosma, M., Ichter, B., Xia, F., Chi, E., Le, Q. V., & Zhou, D. (2022) · Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 · doi:10.52202/068431-1800 · Cited by 4,505 · cited 5×
“Chain-of-thought prompting (C O T; Wei et al., 2022) is a prompting technique that guides the language models to solve a problem in a step-by-step manner.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citationTraining language models to follow instructions with human feedback
Ouyang, L., Wu, J., Jiang, X., Almeida, D., Wainwright, C. L., Mishkin, P., Zhang, C., Agarwal, S., Slama, K., Ray, A., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2203.02155 · Cited by 4,208
Training Language Models to Follow Instructions with Human Feedback
Ouyang, L., Wu, J., Jiang, X., Almeida, D., Wainwright, C., Mishkin, P., Zhang, C., Agarwal, S., Slama, K., Ray, A., et al. (2022) · Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 · doi:10.52202/068431-2011 · Cited by 3,117 · cited 3×
“In addition to demonstrating how to handle irrelevant information via exemplars, we also investigate the usage of task-specific instructions (Wei et al., 2021; Sanh et al., 2021; Ouyang et al., 2022; Suzgun et al., 2022; Chung et al., 2022), where we prepend an instruction sentence “feel free to ignore irrelevant info…”
BackgroundMethodPaLM: Scaling Language Modeling with Pathways
Chowdhery, A., Narang, S., Devlin, J., Bosma, M., Mishra, G., Roberts, A., Barham, P., Chung, H. W., Sutton, C., Gehrmann, S., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2204.02311 · Cited by 2,590 · cited 9×
“Prompting large language models performs decently well in a variety of domains (Brown et al., 2020; Chowdhery et al., 2022, inter alia ).”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialSelf-citationLarge language models are zero-shot reasoners
Kojima, T., Gu, S. (., Reid, M., Matsuo, Y., & Iwasawa, Y. (2022) · Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 · doi:10.52202/068431-1613 · Cited by 2,013 · cited 6×
“C O T; Kojima et al., 2022) is a variation of C O T where the prompt does not contain any exemplar.”
BackgroundInfluentialScaling Instruction-Finetuned Language Models
Chung, H. W., Hou, L., Longpre, S., Zoph, B., Tay, Y., Fedus, W., Li, Y., Wang, X., Dehghani, M., Brahma, S., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2210.11416 · Cited by 1,441 · cited 1×
“In addition to demonstrating how to handle irrelevant information via exemplars, we also investigate the usage of task-specific instructions (Wei et al., 2021; Sanh et al., 2021; Ouyang et al., 2022; Suzgun et al., 2022; Chung et al., 2022), where we prepend an instruction sentence “feel free to ignore irrelevant info…”
BackgroundSelf-citationAdversarial Examples for Evaluating Reading Comprehension Systems
Jia, R., & Liang, P. (2017) · Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/d17-1215 · Cited by 1,410 · cited 2×
“…input perturbations for natural language tasks, including model-agnostic input transformations (Liang et al., 2022; Ravichan-der et al., 2022, inter alia ) and adversarial example generation against individual models (Jia & Liang, 2017; Shi et al., 2018; Morris et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2021).”
BackgroundMethodFinetuned Language Models Are Zero-Shot Learners
Wei, J., Bosma, M., Zhao, V. Y., Guu, K., Yu, A. W., Lester, B., Du, N., Dai, A. M., & Le, Q. V. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2109.01652 · Cited by 1,101 · cited 1×
“In addition to demonstrating how to handle irrelevant information via exemplars, we also investigate the usage of task-specific instructions (Wei et al., 2021; Sanh et al., 2021; Ouyang et al., 2022; Suzgun et al., 2022; Chung et al., 2022), where we prepend an instruction sentence “feel free to ignore irrelevant info…”
Background
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Mamba: Linear-Time Sequence Modeling with Selective State Spaces
Gu, A., & Dao, T. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2312.00752 · Cited by 1,579
Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey
Gao, Y., Xiong, Y., Gao, X., Jia, K., Pan, J., Bi, Y., Dai, Y., Sun, J., Wang, M., & Wang, H. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2312.10997 · Cited by 876
“The question of “when to retrieve” has led to strategies ranging from single [ Wang et al. , 2023e, Shi et al. , 2023 ] to adaptive [Jiang et al. , 2023b, Huang et al. , 2023] and multiple retrieval [Izacard et al. , 2022] methods.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialEvaluation and mitigation of the limitations of large language models in clinical decision-making
Hager, P., Jungmann, F., Holland, R., Bhagat, K., Hubrecht, I., Knauer, M., Vielhauer, J., Makowski, M., Braren, R., Kaissis, G., et al. (2024) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-024-03097-1 · Cited by 798
“All four of the hospitalists are internal medicine physicians with emergency department experience.”
Huang, L., Yu, W., Ma, W., Zhong, W., Feng, Z., Wang, H., Chen, Q., Peng, W., Feng, X., Qin, B., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2311.05232 · Cited by 2,516
“Irrelevant evidence can be propagated into the generation phase, possibly tainting the output (Li et al., 2023a; Shi et al., 2023a; Cho et al., 2023; Xu et al., 2023).”
Enabling Large Language Models to Generate Text with Citations
Gao, T., Yen, H., Yu, J., & Chen, D. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.398 · Cited by 216
Metadata
- Authors
- Shi, F., Chen, X., Misra, K., Scales, N., Dohan, D., Chi, E., Schärli, N., & Zhou, D.
- Affiliations
- Toyota Technological Institute at Chicago (US)
- Purdue University West Lafayette (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2302.00093
- OpenAlex
- W4319049323
- Semantic Scholar
- 3d68522abfadfc8ee6b7ec9edaaf91f1b2f38e5e
- Cited by
- 134
- References
- 63
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 43 · 2024: 55 · 2023: 29
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- 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
- large language models, distractibility, arithmetic reasoning, prompting techniques, instruction following, problem-solving accuracy
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
