PreprintCited by 4Topic ModelingMultimodal Machine Learning ApplicationsNatural Language Processing Techniques

Oolong: Evaluating Long Context Reasoning and Aggregation Capabilities

Open access
Bertsch, Amanda, Pratapa, Adithya, Mitamura, Teruko, Neubig, Graham, Gormley, Matthew R.·2025·arXiv

Abstract

As model context lengths continue to grow, concerns about whether models effectively use the full context length have persisted. While several carefully designed long-context evaluations have recently been released, these evaluations tend to rely on retrieval from one or more sections of the context, which allows nearly all of the context tokens to be disregarded as noise. This represents only one type of task that might be performed with long context. We introduce Oolong, a benchmark of long-context reasoning tasks that require analyzing individual chunks of text on an atomic level, and then aggregating these analyses to answer distributional questions. Oolong is separated into two task sets: Oolong-synth, a set of naturalistic synthetic tasks, where we can easily ablate components of the reasoning problem; and Oolong-real, a downstream setting which requires reasoning over real-world conversational data. Oolong requires models to reason over large quantities of examples, to perform both classification and counting in-context, and to reason over temporal and user relations. Even frontier models struggle on Oolong, with GPT-5, Claude-Sonnet-4, and Gemini-2.5-Pro all achieving less than 50% accuracy on both splits at 128K. We release the data and evaluation harness for Oolong to enable further development of models that can reason over large quantities of text.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2511.02817

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 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?

  • RLM is a natural fit for OOLONG, an aggregation-heavy benchmark where each sample consists of timestamped, user-attributed entries and answering a question often requires classifying many entries before computing a distributional answer.

    “This makes RLM a natural fit for OOLONG (Bertsch et al., 2025), an aggregation-heavy benchmark where each sample consists of timestamped, user-attributed entries and answering a question often requires classifying many entries before computing a distributional answer.”

    From Decentralized Multi-Agent Systems with Shared Context (2026) · cites this paper as Bertsch et al., 2025

    The Introduction describes OOLONG as an information-aggregation benchmark in which relevant segments are classified and pooled into a final answer. Section 2.2 says OOLONG-synth assigns each instance a date and user ID and includes questions about label distributions. But Section 3 describes OOLONG-real as questions over Dungeons & Dragons transcripts, so the claim that each OOLONG sample consists of timestamped, user-attributed entries overgeneralizes the synthetic split. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 36

  1. Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Haowei Zhang, Junxiao Song, Peiyi Wang, Qihao Zhu, Runxin Xu, Ruoyu Zhang, Shirong Ma, Xiao Bi, et al. Deepseek-r1 incentivizes reasoning in llms through reinforcement learning. Nature, 645 (8081):633-638, 2025.
  2. Amanda Bertsch, Maor Ivgi, Emily Xiao, Uri Alon, Jonathan Berant, Matthew R Gormley, and Graham Neubig. In-context learning with long-context models: An in-depth exploration. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.00200, 2024. · arXiv
  3. Carlos E Jimenez, John Yang, Alexander Wettig, Shunyu Yao, Kexin Pei, Ofir Press, and Karthik Narasimhan. Swe-bench: Can language models resolve real-world github issues? arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06770, 2023. · arXiv
  4. Kiran Vodrahalli, Santiago Ontanon, Nilesh Tripuraneni, Kelvin Xu, Sanil Jain, Rakesh Shivanna, Jeffrey Hui, Nishanth Dikkala, Mehran Kazemi, Bahare Fatemi, Rohan Anil, Ethan Dyer, Siamak Shakeri, Roopali Vij, Harsh Mehta, Vinay Ramasesh, Quoc Le, Ed Chi, Yifeng Lu, Orhan Firat, Angeliki Lazaridou, Jean-Baptiste Lespiau, Nithya Attaluri, and Kate Olszewska. Michelangelo: Long context evaluations beyond haystacks via latent structure queries, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.12640. · arXiv
  5. Rishabh Agarwal, Avi Singh, Lei M. Zhang, Bernd Bohnet, Luis Rosias, Stephanie Chan, Biao Zhang, Ankesh Anand, Zaheer Abbas, Azade Nova, John D. Co-Reyes, Eric Chu, Feryal Behbahani, Aleksandra Faust, and Hugo Larochelle. Many-shot in-context learning, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.11018. · arXiv
  6. Tiago A. Almeida, Jose Maria Gomez Hidalgo, and Akebo Yamakami. Contributions to the study of sms spam filtering: New collection and results. In Proceedings of the 2011 ACM Symposium on Document Engineering (DOCENG'11), 2011.
  7. Xin Li and Dan Roth. Learning question classifiers. In COLING 2002: The 19th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, 2002. URL https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/C02-1150.
  8. Eduard Hovy, Laurie Gerber, Ulf Hermjakob, Chin-Yew Lin, and Deepak Ravichandran. Toward semantics-based answer pinpointing. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Human Language Technology Research, 2001. URL https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/H01-1069.
  9. Xiang Zhang, Junbo Jake Zhao, and Yann LeCun. Character-level convolutional networks for text classification. In NIPS, 2015.
  10. Shibamouli Lahiri. SQUINKY! A corpus of sentence-level formality, informativeness, and implicature. arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.02306, 2015. · arXiv
  11. Ellie Pavlick and Joel Tetreault. An empirical analysis of formality in online communication. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2016.
  12. Andrew L. Maas, Raymond E. Daly, Peter T. Pham, Dan Huang, Andrew Y. Ng, and Christopher Potts. Learning word vectors for sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Com- putational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 142-150, Portland, Oregon, USA, June 2011. Association for Computational Linguistics. URL http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/P11-1015.
  13. Iker García-Ferrero, Begoña Altuna, Javier Alvez, Itziar Gonzalez-Dios, and German Rigau. This is not a dataset: A large negation benchmark to challenge large language models. In Houda Bouamor, Juan Pino, and Kalika Bali, editors, Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 8596-8615, Singapore, December 2023. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.531. URL https://aclanthology.org/2023.emnlp-main.531. · DOI
  14. Adina Williams, Nikita Nangia, and Samuel Bowman. A broad-coverage challenge corpus for sentence understand- ing through inference. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers), pages 1112-1122. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2018. URL http://aclweb.org/anthology/N18-1101.
  15. Yuri Bizzoni and Shalom Lappin. Predicting human metaphor paraphrase judgments with deep neural net- works. In Beata Beigman Klebanov, Ekaterina Shutova, Patricia Lichtenstein, Smaranda Muresan, and Chee Wee, editors, Proceedings of the Workshop on Figurative Language Processing, pages 45-55, New Orleans, Louisiana, June 2018. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/W18-0906. URL https://aclanthology.org/W18-0906/. · DOI
  16. Sewon Min, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. Metaicl: Learning to learn in context, 2022. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.15943. · arXiv
  17. Cecilia Ying and Stephen Thomas. Label errors in BANKING77. In Shabnam Tafreshi, João Sedoc, Anna Rogers, Aleksandr Drozd, Anna Rumshisky, and Arjun Akula, editors, Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Insights from Negative Results in NLP, pages 139-143, Dublin, Ireland, May 2022. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2022.insights-1.19. URL https://aclanthology.org/2022.insights-1.19/. · DOI
  18. Derek Chong, Jenny Hong, and Christopher D. Manning. Detecting label errors by using pre-trained language models, 2022. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.12702. · arXiv
  19. Jan-Christoph Klie, Bonnie Webber, and Iryna Gurevych. Annotation error detection: Analyzing the past and present for a more coherent future. Computational Linguistics, 49(1):157-198, 03 2023. ISSN 0891-2017. doi: 10.1162/coli a 00464. URL https://doi.org/10.1162/coli_a_00464. · DOI
  20. Rupak Sarkar, Bahareh Sarrafzadeh, Nirupama Chandrasekaran, Nagu Rangan, Philip Resnik, Longqi Yang, and Sujay Kumar Jauhar. Conversational user-ai intervention: A study on prompt rewriting for improved llm response generation, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.16789. · arXiv
  21. Haoning Xue, Yoo Jung Oh, Xinyi Zhou, Xinyu Zhang, and Berit Oxley. User prompting strategies and chatgpt contextual adaptation shape conversational information-seeking experiences, 2025. URL https://arxiv. org/abs/2509.25513.
  22. Michael Desmond and Michelle Brachman. Exploring prompt engineering practices in the enterprise, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.08950. · arXiv
  23. Revanth Rameshkumar and Peter Bailey. Storytelling with dialogue: A Critical Role Dungeons and Dragons Dataset. In Dan Jurafsky, Joyce Chai, Natalie Schluter, and Joel Tetreault, editors, Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5121-5134, Online, July 2020. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.459. URL https://aclanthology.org/ 2020.acl-main.459/. · DOI
  24. Di Wu, Hongwei Wang, Wenhao Yu, Yuwei Zhang, Kai-Wei Chang, and Dong Yu. Longmemeval: Benchmarking chat assistants on long-term interactive memory. In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2025. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=pZiyCaVuti.
  25. Sil Hamilton, Rebecca M. M. Hicke, Matthew Wilkens, and David Mimno. Too long, didn't model: Decomposing llm long-context understanding with novels, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.14925. · arXiv
  26. Medha Palavalli, Amanda Bertsch, and Matthew R. Gormley. A taxonomy for data contamination in large language models, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.08716. · arXiv
  27. Uri Shaham, Maor Ivgi, Avia Efrat, Jonathan Berant, and Omer Levy. Zeroscrolls: A zero-shot benchmark for long text understanding, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.14196. · arXiv
  28. Yang Zhou, Hongyi Liu, Zhuoming Chen, Yuandong Tian, and Beidi Chen. Gsm-infinite: How do your llms behave over infinitely increasing context length and reasoning complexity?, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2502.05252.
  29. Tomer Wolfson, Harsh Trivedi, Mor Geva, Yoav Goldberg, Dan Roth, Tushar Khot, Ashish Sabharwal, and Reut Tsarfaty. Monaco: More natural and complex questions for reasoning across dozens of documents. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2025.
  30. Xi Ye, Fangcong Yin, Yinghui He, Joie Zhang, Howard Yen, Tianyu Gao, Greg Durrett, and Danqi Chen. Longproc: Benchmarking long-context language models on long procedural generation, 2025. URL https://arxiv. org/abs/2501.05414.
  31. Pei Zhou, Andrew Zhu, Jennifer Hu, Jay Pujara, Xiang Ren, Chris Callison-Burch, Yejin Choi, and Prithviraj Ammanabrolu. I cast detect thoughts: Learning to converse and guide with intents and theory-of-mind in dungeons and dragons, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.10060. · arXiv
  32. Andrew Zhu, Lara Martin, Andrew Head, and Chris Callison-Burch. Calypso: Llms as dungeon master's assistants. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment, 19(1): 380-390, Oct. 2023a. doi: 10.1609/aiide.v19i1.27534. URL https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/ AIIDE/article/view/27534. · DOI · Paper page
  33. Chris Callison-Burch, Gaurav Singh Tomar, Lara Martin, Daphne Ippolito, Suma Bailis, and David Reitter. Dungeons and dragons as a dialog challenge for artificial intelligence. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, page 9379-9393. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2022. doi: 10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-main.637. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.18653/v1/ 2022.emnlp-main.637. · DOI
  34. Andrew Zhu, Karmanya Aggarwal, Alexander Feng, Lara J. Martin, and Chris Callison-Burch. FIREBALL: A dataset of dungeons and dragons actual-play with structured game state information. In Anna Rogers, Jordan Boyd-Graber, and Naoaki Okazaki, editors, Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 4171-4193, Toronto, Canada, July 2023b. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.229. URL https://aclanthology.org/ 2023.acl-long.229/. · DOI
  35. Omer Goldman, Alon Jacovi, Aviv Slobodkin, Aviya Maimon, Ido Dagan, and Reut Tsarfaty. Is it really long context if all you need is retrieval? towards genuinely difficult long context NLP. In Yaser Al-Onaizan, Mohit Bansal, and Yun-Nung Chen, editors, Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 16576-16586, Miami, Florida, USA, November 2024. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp-main.924. URL https://aclanthology.org/ 2024.emnlp-main.924/. · DOI
  36. Jay DeYoung, Stephanie C. Martinez, Iain J. Marshall, and Byron C. Wallace. Do multi-document summarization models synthesize? Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 12:1043-1062, 2024. doi: 10.1162/tacl a 00687. URL https://aclanthology.org/2024.tacl-1.58/. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bertsch, A., Pratapa, A., Mitamura, T., Neubig, G., & Gormley, M. R.
Affiliations
Carnegie Mellon University (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7104044834
Cited by
4
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 4
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
National Science Foundation (2140739)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
Keywords
long-context reasoning, large language models, benchmark, aggregation, conversational data, counting, temporal reasoning, model 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