Skip to content

In-Context Binding Capacity in Language Models

Sep 2026 · 0 citations · 27 references
Computer Science

TL;DR

This work derives why interference can lower measured capacity by reducing single-binding recall even when the load-dependent recall profile is unchanged, and characterize capacity at the model's query interface.

Abstract

How many assignments can a language model recall before it loses track of which value belongs to which entity? We measure this limit using continuous recall curves for 12 models at or below 3B parameters and a threshold sweep over 30 open models up to 12B. On the continuous curves, the load at which recall falls halfway to chance follows $K_{50}=cN^{\alpha}$, with $\alpha=0.820$ and $R^2=0.73$. The broader sweep shows an eightfold range associated with pretraining recipe, although the continuous curves show no detectable recipe effect after controlling for scale, with few modern models in the fit. We derive why interference can lower measured capacity by reducing single-binding recall even when the load-dependent recall profile is unchanged. Direct task training also exceeds the extrapolated zero-shot law, but different measurement criteria prevent interpreting that comparison as a capacity gain. Its formation times follow a power-law form in two independent codebases, conditional on runs that succeed. Together, these results characterize capacity at the model's query interface. Bounds on joint recall and a decomposition of policy errors connect this measurement to working memory and instruction following, without treating recall as a measure of alignment. The controlled task also provides a baseline for testing whether binding limits constrain world-state tracking; the present experiments do not measure state updates or downstream transfer.

View source

Similar papers

#machine learning Preprint Sep 2026

The Model Knows When to Stop: Training-Free Early Stopping for Long-Context Reading

Answer-Convergence Stopping (ACS) is introduced, a training-free stopping rule that measures rather than asks, and reveals that by properly utilizing the output signals of frozen models, it can achieve favorable behaviors like adaptive stopping without the need for additional training.

Muath Alyobi, Mohamed Eltahir, Almoayyad Abuljdail et al. · 0 citations
#artificial intelligence Preprint Aug 2026

Context Poisoning as Extreme-Value Attention Interference in Long-Context Language Models

Under a softmax retrieval abstraction, a finite-sample upper bound is derived showing that maintaining a fixed accuracy target above base rate requires the evidence margin to scale as $\Omega(\sqrt{\log N})$, where N denotes the effective distractor count rather than necessarily the raw context length.

Meysam Ghaffari, Nina Fatehi, Bhaskar Sen et al. · 0 citations
#machine learning Preprint Sep 2026

Detectable Only Where It Is Confounded: What Verified Duplication Counts Say About Membership Evidence in Language Models

When a language model finds a sentence unusually cheap to predict, it is tempting to conclude that the sentence was in its training data. Almost every published test of that inference has had to guess which sentences were in the training data, the members, and which were not. This paper removes the guessing. Two model...

Arman Nik Khah · 0 citations
Preprint Aug 2026

Reversing Arrows in Large Language Models

This work presents the first systematic study of inverse relation directionality in LLMs, using a benchmark consisting of 5,457 instances spanning 27 distinct inverse relation labels and reveals systematic asymmetries in inverse relation classification across LLMs.

Sefika Efeoglu, Adrian Paschke · 0 citations

Related blog posts

MIT News · Artificial Intelligence Oct 28, 2026

Making machines that can listen

Professor Paris Smaragdis develops computers with superhuman hearing for applications like speech recognition, music understanding, and environmental monitoring.

MIT News · Artificial Intelligence Oct 23, 2026

Q&A: How AI came to model the “messy” human mind

Assistant Professor Benjamin Lindquist studies how engineers deliberately injected randomness into early AI, giving rise to deep-learning models that sometimes hallucinate.

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.