Context-Length Robustness in Question Answering Models: A Comparative Empirical Study

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly assist software engineering tasks that require reasoning over long code contexts, yet their robustness under varying input conditions remains unclear. We conduct a systematic study of long-context code question answering using controlled ablations that test sensitivity to answer format, distractors, and context scale. Extending LongCodeBench Python dataset with new COBOL and Java question-answer sets, we evaluate state-of-the-art models under three settings: (i) shuffled multiple-choice options, (ii) open-ended questions and (iii) needle-in-a-haystack contexts containing relevant and adversarially irrelevant information. Results show substantial performance drops in both shuffled multiple-choice options and open-ended questions, and brittle behavior in the presence of irrelevant cues. Our findings highlight limitations of current long-context evaluations and provide a broader benchmark for assessing code reasoning in both legacy and modern systems.

Long-context language models support ever longer context windows, and evaluations typically treat context length as the main indicator of difficulty. However, context length alone cannot explain why models fail on long-context tasks that require reasoning over complex information. Contexts of equal length can pose very different challenges: a task may be solvable from a single local passage, or it may require integrating evidence distributed across the full context. We quantitatively characterise this difficulty through three properties: evidence scope, how much necessary information must be found; evidence dispersion, how widely that information is scattered within the context; and reasoning depth, how many dependent steps are needed to derive an answer from it. We construct LURCH, a multi-domain question-answering benchmark of 6,550 instances with supporting evidence and reasoning graphs, enabling all three properties to be quantified. Evaluations of proprietary and open-weight models show that: (1) at fixed context length, all our three properties are strongly negatively correlated with model performance; (2) as context length increases, performance degrades sharply on samples with dispersed evidence, whereas it remains relatively stable on samples with localised evidence; and (3) difficulty compounds across properties, as questions with moderately high values on all three are harder than those with an extreme value on just one. These findings establish evidence scope, dispersion and reasoning depth as measures of long-context reasoning difficulty that complement context length.

While Large Language Models (LLMs) advertise million-token context windows, reasoning quality often collapses as inputs grow -- a phenomenon termed context rot. This failure stems from a structural entanglement in monolithic architectures, where the massive search burden of contextual grounding exhausts the representational capacity needed for complex reasoning. To resolve this, we propose Grounding-Reasoning Disaggregation via DIStributed long COntext scaling (DISCO). Inspired by distributed computing frameworks like Apache Spark, DISCO partitions long context across a fleet of Worker LLMs dedicated exclusively to parallel, localized grounding. A central Driver LLM, trained via Reinforcement Learning (GRPO) to optimize planning, orchestrates execution by dynamically mapping queries into atomic extraction tasks and reducing the gathered evidence to synthesize a final answer. By isolating reasoning from raw context noise, DISCO effectively eliminates context rot. On RULER-QA (1M tokens), it maintains 78.4% accuracy where standard baselines collapse. Furthermore, it outperforms full-context models by up to 9.8 points on LongBench v2 and matches frontier models like Gemini-3-Pro-Preview while reducing inference costs by over 80%, establishing a highly efficient paradigm for robust long-context inference.