Handover of In-Context Learning State Across Session Boundaries

In-context learning (ICL) derives its power from enabling Large Language Models to adapt to new tasks via prompt-based reasoning alone, entirely bypassing the need for parameter updates. Existing theories primarily study ICL in single-task settings, while real-world prompts often contain sequences of heterogeneous tasks, leaving a gap in understanding whether Large Language Models implicitly perform continual learning during inference. To bridge this gap, we propose the first theoretical framework for in-context continual learning, modeling how a pretrained Transformer processes multiple sequential tasks within a single prompt through shared attention mechanisms. Focusing on linear and masked linear self-attention, we derive error expressions for model predictions under sequential task prompts and analyze their generalization and forgetting behavior. Our results reveal that standard attention mechanisms inevitably induce intertask interference by uniformly or causally aggregating historical contexts, leading to systematic bias. We further provide a bias-variance-interference decomposition of prediction error, characterizing when historical in-context information yields positive transfer or provable negative transfer. This analysis exposes fundamental limits of attention-based continual inference and offers theoretical explanations for order sensitivity and performance degradation in long prompts.

This paper investigates context stickiness in in-context learning (ICL), a phenomenon where earlier examples in a prompt interfere with a transformer's ability to adapt to later tasks. Using synthetic regression tasks over linear and quadratic functions, we examine how models trained under sequential, mixed, and random curricula handle abrupt task switches during inference. By sweeping over structured combinations of misleading linear examples followed by recovery quadratic examples, we quantify how prior context biases prediction error and how quickly models realign. Our results show strong evidence of persistent interference: more preceding linear examples reliably degrade quadratic predictions, while additional quadratic examples reduce error but with diminishing returns. We further find that training curricula significantly modulate resilience, with sequential training on the target function class yielding the fastest recovery, and surprisingly, random training producing the least robust behavior.

Continual learning studies how deployed language models can continually acquire new tasks without expensive retraining from scratch. Existing methods, whether rehearsal-based (replaying stored past data) or rehearsal-free (regularising or isolating parameters), overwhelmingly target one objective: preventing catastrophic forgetting. Forward transfer, the past helping the future, has meanwhile been pursued almost exclusively through parameter reuse, with no explicit account of when transfer should be expected at all. We begin one step earlier: before designing a transfer mechanism, we ask when transfer should exist at all. We answer with a framework of three measurable conditions: the target task must leave room for improvement beyond its own limited supervision, transferable information must survive continued optimisation, and replay must come from compatible previous tasks. We instantiate this view as Transfer-Selective Replay (TSR), which selects replay data predicted to benefit the incoming task rather than replaying past examples indiscriminately. Selection is guided by a zero-training task signature, while distillation preserves stability on previous tasks. Under the standard continual learning protocol in the low-budget regime, TSR consistently improves forward transfer while maintaining stability, outperforming existing replay baselines across heterogeneous and homogeneous task streams. More broadly, the results argue for treating transfer as a first-class objective of continual learning, to be understood before it is engineered.