Let's (not) just put things in Context: Test-Time Training for Long-Context LLMs
Open accessAbstract
Progress on training and architecture strategies has enabled LLMs with millions of tokens in context length. However, empirical evidence suggests that such long-context LLMs can consume far more text than they can reliably use. On the other hand, it has been shown that inference-time compute can be used to scale performance of LLMs, often by generating thinking tokens, on challenging tasks involving multi-step reasoning. Through controlled experiments on sandbox long-context tasks, we find that such inference-time strategies show rapidly diminishing returns and fail at long context. We attribute these failures to score dilution, a phenomenon inherent to static self-attention. Further, we show that current inference-time strategies cannot retrieve relevant long-context signals under certain conditions. We propose a simple method that, through targeted gradient updates on the given context, provably overcomes limitations of static self-attention. We find that this shift in how inference-time compute is spent leads to consistently large performance improvements across models and long-context benchmarks. Our method leads to large 12.6 and 14.1 percentage point improvements for Qwen3-4B on average across subsets of LongBench-v2 and ZeroScrolls benchmarks. The takeaway is practical: for long context, a small amount of context-specific training is a better use of inference compute than current inference-time scaling strategies like producing more thinking tokens.
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.
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
Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models
Wang, X., Wei, J., Schuurmans, D., Le, Q., Chi, E., Narang, S., Chowdhery, A., & Zhou, D. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2203.11171 · Cited by 829 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Given a prefix x 1: i and a target at position i +1 , thinking-token methods (Wei et al., 2022a; Kojima et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2023a) append M ≥ 0 auxiliary tokens at indices t ∈ { i +1 , . . . , i + M } before producing the final answer at a = i + M +1 .”
RULER: What's the Real Context Size of Your Long-Context Language Models?
Hsieh, C.-P., Sun, S., Kriman, S., Acharya, S., Rekesh, D., Jia, F., Zhang, Y., & Ginsburg, B. (2024) · arXiv · Cited by 13 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…however, persistent failure modes remain: models miss clauses buried in lengthy documents, overlook function definitions deep in repositories, or fail to retrieve facts from prior turns even when the relevant content is present “in context” (Liu et al., 2024; Hsieh et al., 2024; Kamradt, 2024).”
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Make Each Token Count: Towards Improving Long-Context Performance with KV Cache Eviction
Bui, N., Nguyen, H. T., Cohan, A., & Ying, R. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.09649
“As a result, useful evidence competes with a growing number of distractors, and attention mass can be diluted away from the tokens needed for prediction [Bansal et al., 2026].”
- Authors
- Bansal, R., Zhang, A., Tiwari, R., Madaan, L., Duvvuri, S. S., Khatri, D., Brandfonbrener, D., Alvarez-Melis, D., Bhargava, P., Kale, M. S., & Jelassi, S.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2512.13898
- OpenAlex
- W4417464835
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 2
- 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 › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
- Keywords
- long-context LLMs, test-time training, multi-step reasoning, Qwen3-4B
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