Unable to Forget: Proactive Interference Reveals Working Memory Limits in LLMs Beyond Context Length
Open accessAbstract
Information retrieval in Large Language Models (LLMs) is increasingly recognized as intertwined with generation capabilities rather than mere lookup. While longer contexts are often assumed to improve retrieval, the effects of intra-context interference remain understudied. To address this, we adapt the proactive interference (PI) paradigm from cognitive science, where earlier information disrupts recall of newer updates. In humans, susceptibility to such interference is inversely linked to working memory capacity. We introduce PI-LLM, an evaluation that sequentially streams semantically related key-value updates and queries only the final values. Although these final values are clearly positioned just before the query, LLM retrieval accuracy declines log-linearly toward zero as interference accumulates; errors arise from retrieving previously overwritten values. Attempts to mitigate interference via prompt engineering (e.g., instructing models to ignore earlier input) yield limited success. These findings reveal a fundamental constraint on LLMs' ability to disentangle interference and flexibly manipulate information, suggesting a working memory bottleneck beyond mere context access. This calls for approaches that strengthen models' ability to suppress irrelevant content during retrieval.
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
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 paper says LLMs suffer from proactive interference to a much larger extent than humans.
“LLMs suffer from 'proactive interference' to a much larger extent than humans, where earlier information significantly disrupts retrieval of newer updates (Wang & Sun, 2025).”
From Large Language Model Reasoning Failures (2026) · cites this paper as Wang & Sun, 2025
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
Research works printed but not linked: 8
- Baddeley, A. D., Thomson, N., and Buchanan, M. Word length and the structure of short-term memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior , 14(6):575-589, December 1975. doi: 10.1016/ S0022-5371(75)80045-4. URL https://doi.org/ 10.1016/S0022-5371(75)80045-4 . · DOI · Paper page
- Festini, S. B. and Reuter-Lorenz, P. A. Cognitive control of familiarity: Directed forgetting reduces proactive interference in working memory. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience , 14(1):7889, March 2014. ISSN 1531-135X. doi: 10.3758/ s13415-013-0231-1. URL https://doi.org/10. 3758/s13415-013-0231-1 .
- Gong, D., Wan, X., and Wang, D. Working Memory Capacity of ChatGPT: An Empirical Study. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , 38(9):1004810056, March 2024. ISSN 2374-3468. doi: 10.1609/ aaai.v38i9.28868. URL https://ojs.aaai.org/ index.php/AAAI/article/view/28868 . Number: 9.
- He, J., Rungta, M., Koleczek, D., Sekhon, A., Wang, F. X., and Hasan, S. Does Prompt Formatting Have Any Impact on LLM Performance?, November 2024. URL http:// arxiv.org/abs/2411.10541 . arXiv:2411.10541 [cs] version: 1. · arXiv
- Kuo, M., Zhang, J., Ding, A., Wang, Q., DiValentin, L., Bao, Y., Wei, W., Juan, D.-C., Li, H., and Chen, Y. HCoT: Hijacking the Chain-of-Thought Safety Reasoning Mechanism to Jailbreak Large Reasoning Models, Including OpenAI o1/o3, DeepSeek-R1, and Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking, February 2025. URL http://arxiv.org/ abs/2502.12893 . arXiv:2502.12893 [cs] version: 1. · arXiv
- Liu, N. F., Lin, K., Hewitt, J., Paranjape, A., Bevilacqua, M., Petroni, F., and Liang, P. Lost in the Middle: How Language Models Use Long Contexts. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics , 12:157173, February 2024. ISSN 2307-387X. doi: 10.1162/ tacl a 00638. URL https://doi.org/10.1162/ tacl\_a\_00638 .
- Oberauer, K. and Vockenberg, K. Updating of working memory: lingering bindings. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology (2006) , 62(5):967-987, May 2009. ISSN 1747-0226. doi: 10.1080/17470210802372912. · DOI
- Vodrahalli, K., Ontanon, S., Tripuraneni, N., Xu, K., Jain, S., Shivanna, R., Hui, J., Dikkala, N., Kazemi, M., Fatemi, B., Anil, R., Dyer, E., Shakeri, S., Vij, R., Mehta, H., Ramasesh, V., Le, Q., Chi, E., Lu, Y., Firat, O., Lazaridou, A., Lespiau, J.-B., Attaluri, N., and Olszewska, K. Michelangelo: Long Context Evaluations Beyond Haystacks via Latent Structure Queries, September 2024. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/ 2409.12640 . arXiv:2409.12640 [cs]. · arXiv
- Authors
- Wang, C., & Sun, J. V.
- Affiliations
- University of Virginia (US)
- New York University (US)
- ORCID
- Sun, Jiaqiu Vince
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2506.08184
- OpenAlex
- W4414930009
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Keywords
- proactive interference, large language models, working memory capacity, prompt engineering, retrieval accuracy, interference mitigation
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