Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Stress-Testing Long-Context Language Models with Lifelong ICL and Task Haystack

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2407.16695 v2 pith:OGHMFRCR submitted 2024-07-23 cs.CL cs.AIcs.LG

Stress-Testing Long-Context Language Models with Lifelong ICL and Task Haystack

classification cs.CL cs.AIcs.LG
keywords tasklong-contexthaystackmodelslifelongcontextsfurtherlanguage
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

We introduce Lifelong ICL, a problem setting that challenges long-context language models (LMs) to learn a sequence of language tasks through in-context learning (ICL). We further introduce Task Haystack, an evaluation suite dedicated to assessing and diagnosing how long-context LMs utilizes contexts in Lifelong ICL. When given a task instruction and test inputs, long-context LMs are expected to leverage the relevant demonstrations in the Lifelong ICL prompt, avoid distraction and interference from other tasks, and achieve test accuracies that are not significantly worse than those of the Single-task ICL baseline. Task Haystack draws inspiration from the widely-adopted "needle-in-a-haystack" (NIAH) evaluation, but presents distinct new challenges. It requires models (1) to utilize the contexts at a deeper level, rather than resorting to simple copying and pasting; (2) to navigate through long streams of evolving topics and tasks, proxying the complexities and dynamism of contexts in real-world scenarios. Additionally, Task Haystack inherits the controllability of NIAH, providing model developers with tools and visualizations to identify model vulnerabilities effectively. We benchmark 14 long-context LMs using Task Haystack, finding that frontier models like GPT-4o still struggle with the setting, failing on 15% of cases on average. Most open-weight models further lack behind by a large margin, with failure rates reaching up to 61%. In our controlled analysis, we identify factors such as distraction and recency bias as contributors to these failure cases. Further, performance declines when task instructions are paraphrased at test time or when ICL demonstrations are repeated excessively, raising concerns about the robustness, instruction understanding, and true context utilization of long-context LMs.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. RULER: What's the Real Context Size of Your Long-Context Language Models?

    cs.CL 2024-04 accept novelty 8.0

    RULER shows most long-context LMs drop sharply in performance on complex tasks as length and difficulty increase, with only half maintaining results at 32K tokens.