In-Context Binding Capacity in Language Models

arXiv:2609.30634v1 Announce Type: new 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.

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.

Machine Learning (cs.LG)

arXiv:2609.30634 [cs.LG]

(or arXiv:2609.30634v1 [cs.LG] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.30634 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

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.

analiza aiqbench

In-Context Binding Capacity in Language Models

Subiecte conexe