Skip to content
AI News HubLIVE
Source content · Analysis pending3 min read

Context Injection and Long-Horizon Reliability: Separating Duplicate Recognition, Local Processing, and Counter Tracking

Summary

arXiv:2610.20633v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Long-horizon failures of language models are usually measured as end-task success or as a horizon length. We instead score, step by step, three components of a 400-step ledger task in which every step is easy in isolation and the model's own answers are re-injected into its context: recognising a record already seen 5 to 300 steps earlier, processing the current record locally, and writing a counter incremented at every step. On Qwen3-8B (non-thinking, 20 seeds, replicated on a second machine and backend), with every step scored component by component, two results hold. First, duplicate-recognition errors rise late in the episode -- from 0.0019 to 0.011 per step at risk across step 200 -- while the counter makes no error in 8,000 steps and l…

SourcearXiv Computational LinguisticsAuthor: Thomas Serval
Context Injection and Long-Horizon Reliability: Separating Duplicate Recognition, Local Processing, and Counter Tracking
Report an error

The correction channel is not available yet. You can copy the article reference below for later.

Correction instructions
Read article

[Submitted on 30 Sep 2026]

Title:Context Injection and Long-Horizon Reliability: Separating Duplicate Recognition, Local Processing, and Counter Tracking

View a PDF of the paper titled Context Injection and Long-Horizon Reliability: Separating Duplicate Recognition, Local Processing, and Counter Tracking, by Thomas Serval

View PDF HTML (experimental)

Abstract:Long-horizon failures of language models are usually measured as end-task success or as a horizon length. We instead score, step by step, three components of a 400-step ledger task in which every step is easy in isolation and the model's own answers are re-injected into its context: recognising a record already seen 5 to 300 steps earlier, processing the current record locally, and writing a counter incremented at every step. On Qwen3-8B (non-thinking, 20 seeds, replicated on a second machine and backend), with every step scored component by component, two results hold. First, duplicate-recognition errors rise late in the episode -- from 0.0019 to 0.011 per step at risk across step 200 -- while the counter makes no error in 8,000 steps and local processing is descriptively stable; the rise combines long-distance recall errors and rising false alarms. Second, a block of irrelevant content inserted before each step makes the counter fail in 20 of 20 seeds on each machine, against none without it, while its effect on local processing is much smaller and not distinguishable from none. Three pre-registered follow-ups probe the counter. Its value depends on the value present in the response history: a corrupted value persists without correction in every seed, and an exact external reminder, repeated before each message, re-aligns it within one to two steps. Under the irrelevant block, no counter error was observed when an exact compact reminder of the state, supplied externally by an oracle, preceded each message (0 of 20 seeds with an error, against 15 without it), and this reminder outperformed a length-matched neutral text; whether a single reminder suffices was not conclusive, and the absence of damage to the other components was not established. An aggregate or exclusive error classification can hide the difference we report.

Comments: 17 pages, 5 figures. Code, data and reproduction script: this https URL (tag v1.0-arxiv)

Subjects:

Computation and Language (cs.CL)

Cite as: arXiv:2610.20633 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2610.20633v1 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.20633

arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

Submission history

From: Thomas Serval [view email] [v1] Wed, 30 Sep 2026 14:08:47 UTC (144 KB)

Full-text links:

Access Paper:

View a PDF of the paper titled Context Injection and Long-Horizon Reliability: Separating Duplicate Recognition, Local Processing, and Counter Tracking, by Thomas Serval

View PDF

HTML (experimental)

TeX Source

view license

Additional Features

Audio Summary

Current browse context:

cs.CL

new | recent | 2026-10

Change to browse by:

cs

References & Citations

NASA ADS

Google Scholar

Semantic Scholar

Loading...

Data provided by:

Bibliographic Tools

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer Toggle

Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)

Connected Papers Toggle

Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)

Litmaps Toggle

Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)

scite.ai Toggle

scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)

Code, Data, Media

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv Toggle

alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)

Links to Code Toggle

CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)

DagsHub Toggle

DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)

GotitPub Toggle

Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)

Huggingface Toggle

Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)

ScienceCast Toggle

ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)

Demos

Demos

Replicate Toggle

Replicate (What is Replicate?)

Spaces Toggle

Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)

Spaces Toggle

TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)

Related Papers

Recommenders and Search Tools

Link to Influence Flower

Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)

Core recommender toggle

CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)

Author

Venue

Institution

Topic

About arXivLabs

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)

Key points and analysis

Article intelligence

EngineersAdvanced

Key points

  • AI generation is temporarily unavailable; this entry was preserved with deterministic fallback metadata.
  • arXiv:2610.20633v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Long-horizon failures of language models are usually measured as end-task success or as a horizon length. We instead score, step by…

Highlights and analysis are generated automatically and may contain errors. Check the original source.