Mixing Matters: Evidence Position Bias Across Sequence Mixers in Long-Context Question Answering

Long-context question answering (QA) remains challenging for smaller language models even when answer-bearing evidence is already present in the input. Existing within-context retrieval methods localize and expose candidate evidence chunks for the question, but they stop at input-level evidence exposure rather than adapting the query-side attention parameters that control how the model allocates attention over full-context positions. In contrast, lightweight test-time adaptation methods, such as query-only test-time training (qTTT), leave evidence localization unresolved because their generic span-level self-supervised objectives do not identify which context positions support the current answer. In this paper, we propose Evidence-Aligned SElective Test-Time Training (EASE-TTT), a within-context retrieval-augmented test-time training framework that converts selected evidence chunks into a soft attention supervision target over their token positions. Instead of replacing the full context with retrieved chunks, EASE-TTT uses the resulting attention target to guide query-side adaptation, with the adapted model generating the final answer from the original full context. Experiments on six LongBench QA tasks and three small decoder-only language models show that EASE-TTT achieves the strongest macro-average performance among full-context inference, retrieval-only baselines, and qTTT, supporting evidence-aligned test-time adaptation in long-context QA.

Long-context language models can increasingly process entire documents, making full-context prompting a practical alternative to passage retrieval. However, greater capacity determines how much information a model can receive, but not which information best supports a query. This distinction motivates rethinking retrieval: when the full document already fits, can selecting and organizing its evidence improve answering? The challenge is to retain supporting facts and relations while keeping the context focused on the question. To reconcile these goals, we introduce \ours, a training-free framework that uses semantic abstraction to guide selection while retaining original text for answering. \ours constructs a reusable semantic hierarchy from the full document in a single generation, linking node descriptions to source spans. Given a query, structural--semantic scoring and fine-grained lexical attribution nominate shared source nodes; their union with ancestor context preserves structural relations and complete local text. Across four frontier answer models, \ours improves average QA-F1 by 1.72 points over full-context prompting on three LongBench tasks, surpassing the evaluated baselines on the four-model average while reducing answer-context length by 58.55%. Our code is available at the repository.

Position-controlled evaluation is standard for retrieval tasks such as Needle-in-a-Haystack and RULER, but mainstream reasoning benchmarks do not control positional placement of target tasks in long contexts. We audit 11 long-context benchmarks and find none jointly controls task position, filler content, and context length for reasoning. An audit of four flagship long-context releases finds no main result-table entry for NIAH, RULER, or LongBench-family benchmarks, while agentic and coding benchmarks appear in main result-tables across all four. We propose Context Rot Evaluation (CRE), a controlled framework varying all three factors, and evaluate nine LLMs on GSM8K and ARC-Challenge across two rounds: an initial five-model set and four newer vendor releases. Models can drop sharply when the target task moves from end to middle, and the drop grows worse with context length for vulnerable models. MiMo-v2-Flash drops 88pp at 64K under with_solutions filler (middle accuracy 8%). Newer releases show smaller drops: at 64K, three of four stay within +/-6pp of end-position accuracy; MiMo-V2.5-Pro narrows the MiMo-v2-Flash 88pp drop to 32pp. Under questions_only_v2 filler, middle-position drops persist across all four (range -16pp to -56pp across 8K, 32K, 64K). At 8K, a diagnostic probe adding a target-task copy at the end brings middle accuracy within +/-4pp of end baseline across all nine models, consistent with a positional explanation. In the initial five-model set, 76% of middle-position errors match surrounding filler text versus 22% at the end position, consistent with filler-answer interference as a dominant error mode. These results expose a structural evaluation gap in current reasoning benchmark design and vendor evaluation practice: positional vulnerabilities that grow with context length cannot be measured when task position is not controlled.