Organizations: King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST), Thuwal, Saudi Arabia · Department of Computer Science, Edge Hill University, Ormskirk, England
A language model reads long text in one quadratic forward pass, stops at the context window, and loses accuracy with length before reaching it. We ask whether the read can be factorized when deciding over a finite set: which document is relevant, which option is supported, which passage is the evidence. Periscope, a training-free inference method, arranges the N chunks of a text on a K×K grid with K=⌈N⌉ and asks a frozen model the same question about K local spans of consecutive chunks and K strided spans that sample the whole text, reading the log-odds of every answer at one token. Each answer takes its best local and strided score, and scoring every chunk by its two spans gives an evidence map at no further cost, whose peak is the chunk behind the answer. Every probe is about sc tokens for a text of s tokens and chunk size c, so a window of W tokens reaches W2/c tokens at s1.5 cost. The map replaces the long read. On LongBench v2, reading only the K chunks the map ranks highest, 9k tokens, matches the same model's best window read across windows from 32k to 1M tokens, and on InfiniteBench, where the median context is 150k tokens, it leads the best window read by 5 points. The same map ranks BRIGHT's long-document corpora with the best NDCG@10 of six methods. Each call caches only one probe, so a 27B model reads 4.5M-token contexts on one 80GB GPU, where a single pass would need 296GB of cache. A long read then needs a GPU that holds the model, not one that holds the text.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Qwen3.5-27B on LongBench v2. Left: Accuracy by context length. The window read at the native 262k window is dotted past it, where it reads only a prefix. Right: Accuracy against the peak key-value cache of one call, three models (Table 1 ). Circles: the window read at each window. Stars: Periscope ’s selected read.
Figure 2: Periscope on a LongBench v2 question. Left: the window read sees only the first chunks and misses the evidence in chunk 9. Right: the chunks sit on a K×K grid, here 3×3 , each local probe Li reads K consecutive chunks and each strided probe Sj every K -th chunk, and each chunk scores the sum of its two probes. The map peaks at the evidence chunk, and the answer comes from reading the top K chunks (Select) or from each option’s best local and strided scores alone (Direct).
Method
Read
PFLOPs
KV
Short
Medium
Long
All
(a) Qwen3.5-4B
Window read, 32k
32k
0.3
1.1
41.1
34.0
33.3
36.4
Window read, 64k
64k
0.6
2.1
45.6
33.5
35.2
38.2
Window read, 131k
131k
1.2
4.3
45.0
38.6
43.5
41.9
Window read, 262k
262k
2.4
8.6
45.6
37.2
43.5
41.6
Window read, 1M (YaRN)
1M
8.4
32.8
43.9
34.4
40.7
39.2
Table 1: LongBench v2 accuracy (%) by split and the cost of each arm. Read : tokens in the final call, K chunks being 9k on average. PFLOPs : mean compute per question from the exact token counts of every call. KV : peak key-value cache of one call, GB. A dash: the read does not fit one A100 80GB. Bold: best per column within a block.
Table 3: BRIGHT long-document retrieval, full corpus, 350 queries over 3,792 documents, one frozen model (Qwen3-4B) for FirstP, the window read, and Periscope . Window read : the longest prefix that fits 16k tokens. Chunk-max : every 512-token chunk embedded, a document scored by its best chunk. R@ k : recall at k .
Figure 3: When do the probes cost less than the read? (a) Wall-clock of one single read against one batch of its 2K probes, Qwen3.5-4B on one A100 served at 1M tokens. (b) Compute of both arms from Eq. 6 with measured coefficients, crossovers marked.
Probes
LongBench v2
BRIGHT
one per chunk (MaxP)
–
.551
local only
39.4
.551
local + strided (default)
40.2
.637
Table 4: Ablations. (a) Local probes with and without the strided probes, direct readout, with BRIGHT NDCG@10 on 150 queries. (b) Independent probes against a chain over the same K local spans, with latency per question, LongBench v2, Qwen3.5-4B.
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Domain
BM25
Embed
Embed, chunk-max
FirstP
Window read
Periscope
NDCG@10
Biology
.206
.565
.514
.508
.622
.688
Earth science
.184
.577
.512
.301
.441
.426
Economics
.239
.464
.471
.263
.441
.455
Pony
.355
.143
.069
.099
.273
.379
Psychology
.184
.561
.551
.160
.532
.613
Appendix
Table 5: Per-domain NDCG@10, MRR, and Recall@10 on BRIGHT long-document retrieval, full corpus, 50 queries per domain. Bold: best per row.
Domain
n
Window read
Direct readout
Selected read
Qwen3.5-4B
Single-document QA
175
38.9
41.7
43.4
Multi-document QA
125
40.0
32.0
33.6
Long in-context learning
81
54.3
43.2
49.4
Long-dialogue history
39
43.6
51.3
53.8
Code repository
50
34.0
38.0
36.0
Appendix
Table 6: LongBench v2 accuracy (%) by domain, all splits, both models. Bold: best per row.
Arm
Wins
Losses
n
Periscope , selected read
54
54
503
Periscope , direct readout
51
60
503
First K chunks
39
93
503
Random K chunks
44
89
503
Embedding K chunks
51
82
503
K/2 chunks
52
63
503
Appendix
Table 7: Questions won and lost against the 131k window read of Qwen3.5-4B on the same questions. n=503 unless stated.
<32 k
32–64k
64–131k
131–262k
262k–1M
>1 M
Model
Arm
n=111
n=71
n=116
n=105
n=67
n=33
Qwen3.5-4B
Window read, 32k
43.2
39.4
29.3
37.1
32.8
36.4
Qwen3.5-4B
Window read, 64k
43.2
46.5
29.3
35.2
38.8
42.4
Qwen3.5-4B
Window read, 131k
44.1
43.7
34.5
43.8
44.8
45.5
Qwen3.5-4B
Window read, 262k
43.2
46.5
34.5
40.0
49.3
39.4
Qwen3.5-4B
Window read, 1M (YaRN)
41.4
45.1
29.3
41.0
40.3
45.5
Appendix
Table 8: Accuracy (%) by context length in tokens, both models, with bin edges at the 131k and 262k windows. Figure 1 (left) plots the 27B’s native 262k read and both readouts. A window read past its window reads the longest prefix that fits.
Model
Arm
Agree (%)
r
ρ
Acc. (%)
Qwen3.5-4B
Periscope , selected read
70.5
0.82
0.70
40.3
Qwen3.5-4B
Periscope , direct readout
67.8
0.82
0.68
40.6
Qwen3.5-4B
Embedding K chunks
64.4
0.76
0.60
36.2
Qwen3.5-4B
Random K chunks
58.4
0.71
0.60
33.6
Qwen3.5-4B
First K chunks
59.7
0.67
0.58
30.9
Qwen3.5-4B
Whole read, re-run of itself (ceiling, n=120 )
95.0
1.00
–
–
Appendix
Table 9: Does the arm make the whole read’s decision? The 298 LongBench v2 contexts the 131k window reads whole. Agree : same answer as the whole read. r : Pearson correlation of the option log-probabilities with the whole read’s, log-softmaxed over the four letters, 1,192 option points. ρ : mean per-question Spearman. The ceiling row is the whole read against a second run of itself in another session, on the 120 medium contexts read whole in both.
Figure 4: Qwen3.5-27B, the direct readout’s log-probability of each option against the whole read’s, on the 298 contexts read whole.
Figure 5: What does the map look like? Three long-split questions, Qwen3.5-27B. Each horizontal line of cells is one local span and each vertical line one strided span, so the document reads line by line. The outlined cell is the peak, the dots are the K selected chunks, and the dashed line marks the last local span a 131k read sees. (a) The peak’s local and strided spans cross on the chunk that holds the answer, 782k tokens in, and the selection reads that local span. (b) The peak is 2.0M tokens into a price table, and the selection reads its local span. (c) A flat map, its peak 0.4 above the next cell: the selection scatters and the selected read misses, while the direct readout, which uses only the best score of each answer, still answers right.
Method
Top-1
MRR
Tokens
Chance
30.6
50.8
–
BM25
42.0
60.2
–
Qwen3-Embed-4B
50.0
67.3
–
FirstP
9.0
26.7
–
FullRead, points once
c
c
1.0
FullRead, N reads
45.0
58.7
15.9
Appendix
Table 10: Does the peak land on the evidence when the whole document fits in one probe? 100 annotated OBLIQ documents, chunk level, given the document. Chance is a random order. Tokens : judge tokens per query, in thousands.
Language models (LMs) are often used as a tool to model human language processing. Recent studies suggest that severely restricting LMs' context window improves their fit to human psycholinguistic data by simulating human working memory constraints. However, it is possible that this strict memory-decay approach overlooks humans' reliance on long-range structural representations, such as discourse structre. In this work, we systematically vary the context window size of GPT-2 across four large-scale naturalistic English reading-time datasets and observe a U-shaped relationship: Although restricted contexts (< 20 tokens) successfully capture local memory limitations, expanded contexts (500--1,000 tokens) ultimately yield the highest overall psycholinguistic fit. To investigate the mechanism driving this benefit, we conduct a counterfactual inference-time experiment that disrupts cross-sentential entity chains by pronominalizing repeated discourse entities. Obscuring these structural linkages significantly degrades the predictive power of larger context windows by 20% to 40%. Our experiments demonstrate that tracking long-range coreference relations is one important factor for the alignment between LM surprisal and human reading behavior, and approximate the extent to which human comprehenders use global discourse relations during language processing.
Kohei Kajikawa, Lin Ai, Tatsuki Kuribayashi +1
Department of Linguistics, Georgetown University, USA · Computing and Mathematical Sciences Division, MBZUAI, UAE · Center for Language AI Research, Tohoku University, Japan
Long-Text Understanding (LTU) at million-token scale requires balancing reasoning fidelity with computational efficiency. Frontier long-context LLMs can process millions of token contexts end-to-end, but they suffer from high token consumption and attention dilution. In parallel, specialized LTU agents often sacrifice fidelity through task-agnostic abstractions like graph construction or indexing. We identify a key insight for LTU: query-relevant information is typically sparse relative to the full document, so effective reasoning should rely on a query-sufficient subset rather than the entire context. To address this, we propose SCOUT, a new paradigm for LTU that shifts from passive processing to active information foraging. It treats the document as an explorable environment and answers from a compact, provenance-grounded epistemic state. Guided by state-level gap diagnosis, SCOUT adaptively alternates between coarse-to-fine exploration and anchored state updates that progressively contract its epistemic state toward query sufficiency. Experiments show that SCOUT matches state-of-the-art proprietary models while reducing token consumption by up to 8x. Moreover, SCOUT remains stable as context length scales, substantially alleviating the practical cost-performance trade-off.
Zhenliang Zhang, Wenqing Wang, Yong Hu +4
Peking University · WeChat, Tencent · Work done during an internship at WeChat, Tencent
We propose RecaLLM, a set of reasoning language models post-trained to make effective use of long-context information. In-context retrieval, which identifies relevant evidence from context, and reasoning are deeply intertwined: retrieval supports reasoning, while reasoning often determines what must be retrieved. However, their interaction remains largely underexplored. In preliminary experiments on several open-source LLMs, we observe that in-context retrieval performance substantially degrades even after a short reasoning span, revealing a key bottleneck for test-time scaling that we refer to as lost-in-thought: reasoning steps that improve performance also make subsequent in-context retrieval more challenging. To address this limitation, RecaLLM interleaves reasoning with explicit in-context retrieval, alternating between reasoning and retrieving context information needed to solve intermediate subproblems. We introduce a negligible-overhead constrained decoding mechanism that enables verbatim copying of evidence spans, improving the grounding of subsequent generation. Trained on diverse lexical and semantic retrieval tasks, RecaLLM achieves strong performance on two long-context benchmarks, RULER and HELMET, significantly outperforming baselines. Notably, we observe consistent gains at context windows of up to 128K tokens using training samples of at most 10K tokens, far shorter than those used by existing long-context approaches, highlighting a promising path toward improving long-context performance without expensive long-context training data.