Predicting Contextual Informativeness for Vocabulary Learning using Deep Learning

How do language models reconcile conflicting contextual evidence within a prompt? We study this question using lexical redefinition, where an explicit instruction specifies how a word should be interpreted and a subsequent sentence provides additional evidence through its usage. Across 870 word pairs, we find that lexical redefinitions are not applied as fixed rules. Instead, the behaviour depends systematically on the relationship between the explicit instruction and the intervening sentence: the contextualised usage can preserve, weaken, or completely reverse the instruction. These results suggest that the interpretation of an explicit instruction remains sensitive to subsequent contextual evidence. Lexical redefinition therefore provides a controlled behavioural paradigm for studying how language models integrate multiple sources of information within a prompt.

In-context learning (ICL) allows language models to adapt their behavior from instructions and demonstrations in a prompt, but accuracy alone does not reveal how contextual information controls their predictions. We study the acquisition and trainability of ICL with a controlled diagnostic that separates copying a nearby demonstration from integrating information across the prompt. Across 17 models, about a third prefer the copied answer, a few are undecided, and the rest prefer the rule-consistent answer, which goes with higher accuracy and with control by the requested value rather than the closest conflicting example. Checkpoint analyses show that models begin prioritizing task-relevant prompt tokens over conflicting examples long before their accuracy improves beyond chance level. In matched training experiments, synthetic documents that define endings and then query them shift models toward compositional responses on the controlled diagnostic, whereas fine-tuning on definition exercises built from rewritten real documents improves accuracy when prompts reassign label meanings. The results suggest that ICL is not acquired as a single, uniform capability. Instead, prompt control, answer preference, construction without candidates, and transfer can develop along distinct trajectories.

Input length and the position of relevant information are widely cited as the primary causes of degraded LLM long-context performance. Here, we study lexical density -- the rate at which a context introduces distinct information -- as a third, largely overlooked factor that systematically reduces the effective context window of LLMs. We quantify the impact of lexical density on open-weight LLMs (9B-685B) using three "find-the-needle" style benchmarks with identical length (~12k tokens) and controlled needle position, but increasing density of information. We observe a sharp performance collapse in higher-density benchmarks: models that are near-perfect in sparse contexts drop below 60% retrieval score on denser ones. To rule out task-type confounds, we vary and control the density within each benchmark while keeping all other properties unchanged. Reducing density generally restores performance, especially in the high-density regimes where degradation appears. These results show that effective context capacity is a function of lexical density, with direct implications for real-world LLM systems operating on compact, information-rich inputs.