PreprintCited by 31Topic ModelingDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot LearningMultimodal Machine Learning Applications

Long-context LLMs Struggle with Long In-context Learning

Open access
Li, Tianle, Zhang, Ge, Do, Quy Duc, Yue, Xiang, Chen, Wenhu·2024·arXiv

Abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) have made significant strides in handling long sequences. Some models like Gemini could even to be capable of dealing with millions of tokens. However, their performance evaluation has largely been confined to metrics like perplexity and synthetic tasks, which may not fully capture their true abilities in more challenging, real-world scenarios. We introduce a benchmark (LongICLBench) for long in-context learning in extreme-label classification using six datasets with 28 to 174 classes and input lengths from 2K to 50K tokens. Our benchmark requires LLMs to comprehend the entire input to recognize the massive label spaces to make correct predictions. We evaluate on 15 long-context LLMs and find that they perform well on less challenging classification tasks with smaller label space and shorter demonstrations. However, they struggle with more challenging task like Discovery with 174 labels, suggesting a gap in their ability to process long, context-rich sequences. Further analysis reveals a bias towards labels presented later in the sequence and a need for improved reasoning over multiple pieces of information. Our study reveals that long context understanding and reasoning is still a challenging task for the existing LLMs. We believe LongICLBench could serve as a more realistic evaluation for the future long-context LLMs.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2404.02060

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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 viability of long-context LLMs as long-term memory storage remains largely uncertain given the many engineering hurdles involved and the apparent limitations of long-context LLMs even within current context lengths.

    “However, the viability of this future remains largely uncertain given the many engineering hurdles involved and the apparent limitations of long-context LLMs, even within current context lengths [41, 45, 96, 21].”
  • LLMs exhibit significant position bias over input result sequences.

    “Studies have found that LLMs exhibit significant position bias over the input result sequences [100, 101]”

    From Foundations of GenIR (2025) · cites this paper as [100]

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

Cited by 31

Authors
Li, T., Zhang, G., Do, Q. D., Yue, X., & Chen, W.
Affiliations
Vector Institute (CA)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4393942918
Cited by
31
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 10
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
Keywords
long-context LLMs, benchmark, long sequences, sequence bias, multi-step reasoning, 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