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.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: A schematic example contrasts full context with distractors, incomplete retrieval with missing support, and TreeFuse ’s focused context retaining both supporting statements.
Figure 2: Overview of TreeFuse. (a) A single generation constructs a semantic hierarchy whose nodes are aligned to original source spans. (b) Structural–semantic scoring and fine-grained lexical attribution independently nominate nodes from this shared representation. (c) Their union is completed with ancestor nodes and used to prune the original tree. Retained nodes preserve their structural relations and complete local source text for answering.
Dataset
Method
Qwen3.8-Max
DeepSeek-V4-Pro
Kimi-K2.6
GLM-5.3
Overall
Qasper
Raw
48.89
51.20
50.35
46.61
49.26
LongLL \citep longllmlingua2024
29.75
26.55
24.58
27.72
27.15 ( ↓ 22.11 )
Provence \citep provence2025
47.50
46.18
48.17
46.84
47.17 ( ↓ 2.09 )
HiChunk \citep hichunk2025
49.70
49.88
49.24
46.85
48.92 ( ↓ 0.35 )
BRIEF-Pro \citep briefpro2026
49.93
48.50
47.98
47.06
48.37 ( ↓ 0.90 )
LongRefiner \citep longrefiner2025
31.52
31.00
29.91
29.59
30.50 ( ↓ 18.76 )
Table 1: LongBench QA-F1 (three-run means). Overall averages four models; parentheses show changes from Raw. Bold/underline mark the best/second-best means.
Method
Qwen
DS
Kimi
GLM
Overall
Raw
79.26
76.52
80.66
84.22
80.17
LongLL
64.45
61.14
62.30
64.93
63.20 ( ↓ 16.96 )
Provence
71.85
70.77
71.93
76.96
72.88 ( ↓ 7.29 )
HiChunk
72.15
72.23
73.85
77.59
73.96 ( ↓ 6.21 )
BRIEF-Pro
72.30
71.14
70.73
75.31
72.37 ( ↓ 7.79 )
LongRefiner
43.07
38.79
38.68
43.04
40.89 ( ↓ 39.27 )
Table 2: LaRA accuracy (%) averaged over three answer runs. Overall averages the four models, with changes from Raw in parentheses.
Dataset
Method
All-hit
Purity
ECP
Overall
Qasp.
LongLL
0.57
2.18
1.38
27.15
Prov.
16.57
17.82
17.20
47.17
HiChunk
96.00
5.80
50.90
48.92
BRIEF
73.71
25.41
49.56
48.37
LongRef.
20.57
5.19
12.88
30.50
TreeFuse
96.57
9.33
52.95
50.25
Table 3: Evidence coverage, purity, and ECP (%). Overall QA-F1 is reused from Table 1 .
Variant
HotpotQA
2WikiMQA
Avg.
Raw
75.69
84.19
79.94
Semantic-only
76.59
83.97
80.28 ( ↑ 0.34 )
Lexical-only (BM)
73.54
76.38
74.96 ( ↓ 4.98 )
Semantic-only (BM)
74.93
81.87
78.40 ( ↓ 1.54 )
TreeFuse
77.39
84.85
81.12 ( ↑ 1.18 )
Table 4: Effects of semantic and lexical selection.
Variant
HotpotQA
2WikiMQA
Avg.
Raw
75.69
84.19
79.94
Fixed 200
72.77
79.47
76.12 ( ↓ 3.82 )
Chonkie
74.33
78.77
76.55 ( ↓ 3.39 )
TreeFuse (flat)
74.07
80.93
77.50 ( ↓ 2.44 )
TreeFuse
77.39
84.85
81.12 ( ↑ 1.18 )
Table 5: Effects of semantic units and hierarchy.
Variant
HotpotQA
2WikiMQA
Avg.
Raw
75.69
84.19
79.94
Multi-stage
75.47
82.33
78.90 ( ↓ 1.04 )
HiChunk adapter
74.15
82.54
78.34 ( ↓ 1.60 )
TreeFuse
77.39
84.85
81.12 ( ↑ 1.18 )
Table 6: Effects of tree-construction strategy.
Appendix figures & tables13 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Method
Indexed representation
Query-time mechanism
Reader input
Reuse / Train
LongLLMLingua
Flat prompt
Token pruning
Retained tokens
No / No
Provence
Flat passages
Sentence pruning
Source sentences
No / Yes
RAPTOR
Summary tree
Dense node retrieval
Summaries / nodes
Yes / No
LongRefiner
Document hierarchy
Learned adaptive refinement
Refined spans
Yes / Yes
HiChunk
Learned hierarchy
Retrieval + Auto-Merge
Merged chunks
Yes / Yes
ACC-RAG
Multi-granular embeddings
Adaptive compression rate
Compressed features
Yes / Yes
Appendix
Table 7: Comparison with evaluated baselines and selected related methods. ‘Reuse’ denotes a document representation shared across queries. ‘Train’ denotes method-specific parameter updates.
Figure 3: Three paradigms for constructing an answer context. Flat methods organize text as independent units and retrieve, prune, or rewrite them; prior hierarchical methods build method-dependent trees and retrieve, expand, merge, or refine tree regions; TreeFuse constructs a reusable source-grounded semantic hierarchy from the full document, prunes it to an ancestor-closed retained subtree for each query, and serializes the complete local source spans while preserving the original parent–child relations and sibling order.
Interface
Fields
Construction
sections : records with structure , title , boundary_type , heading_verbatim , text_before_cut , summary , and facts .
Scoring input
Query, document directory, and node records containing node_id , title , and semantic material .
Scoring output
scores : records with node_id , integer relevance in [0,10] , and reason .
Selection cutoff
Integer keep_threshold in [1,10] .
Answer context
doc_id and tree , with level , title , source_text , and optional children per node.
Appendix
Table 8: Principal interfaces used for construction, selection, and answering. Only fields relevant to the all-node selection path are shown.
Setting
Value or behavior
Provenance
Constructor / scorer
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
Reported setting
Construction facts
Typically 3–6, at most 8 requested
Construction prompt
Scoring material
Section summary, atomic facts, and parent context
Node metadata
Missing metadata
First 300 source characters when both summary and facts are absent
Scorer implementation
Batch size
40 nodes and 48,000 serialized-entry characters
Scorer defaults
Cutoff suggestions
3 attempts, minimum valid keep threshold
Selector default
Appendix
Table 9: Method settings. Entries marked as defaults refer to the implementation.
Method
Compression or retrieval model
Configuration
LongLL
Llama-2-7B
Requested retention rate 0.25.
Provence
DeBERTa-v3 reranker
Sentence threshold 0.1, title retention enabled, no reordering.
HiChunk
Youtu-HiChunk and BGE-M3
200-token chunks, maximum depth 10, top-128 retrieval and Auto-Merge, 4,096-token context budget.
Query analysis, document structuring, and global selection, with BGE reranking and a 2,048-token target.
Appendix
Table 10: Models and context settings for the main baseline comparison.
Dataset
Raw
LongLL
Provence
HiChunk
BRIEF-Pro
LongRefiner
TreeFuse
Qasper
49.26 ± 0.99
27.15 ± 1.05
47.17 ± 0.90
48.92 ± 0.48
48.37 ± 0.74
30.50 ± 0.35
50.25 ± 0.22
HotpotQA
69.51 ± 0.72
56.55 ± 1.08
66.01 ± 0.78
66.62 ± 2.41
68.18 ± 0.51
57.64 ± 1.87
71.23 ± 1.31
2WikiMQA
70.63 ± 0.73
56.54 ± 0.87
61.82 ± 0.70
69.69 ± 0.23
69.34 ± 1.16
45.80 ± 0.45
73.09 ± 0.09
LaRA
80.17 ± 0.30
63.20 ± 0.29
72.88 ± 0.28
73.96 ± 1.14
72.37 ± 1.19
40.89 ± 1.48
80.59 ± 0.37
Appendix
Table 11: Run-level variability for the main comparison. Each entry is the four-model Overall mean with its 95% Student- t interval over three decoding runs. The intervals characterize run variability on the fixed evaluation sample and contexts only.
Figure 4: Compression–performance trade-off on Qasper, HotpotQA, and 2WikiMQA, averaged over Qwen3.8-Max, DeepSeek-V4-Pro, Kimi-K2.6, and GLM-5.3. Compression rate is the percentage of raw context characters removed. The vertical axis starts below 0% so Raw remains visible. Moving right indicates better QA-F1, whereas moving upward indicates stronger compression.
Benchmark
Method
Qwen
DeepSeek
Kimi
GLM
Context (%)
LB
Raw
69.59
67.56
52.42
63.02
100.00
LongLLMLingua
63.11
55.90
42.69
53.21
38.76
Provence
69.43
67.32
53.10
63.45
35.96
HiChunk
66.54
64.62
50.27
61.11
38.96
BRIEF-Pro
68.71
63.84
54.28
62.29
23.75
LongRefiner
55.43
41.95
42.02
45.11
30.89
Appendix
Table 12: Additional comparisons with adjusted baseline context lengths. LongBench reports mean QA-F1 across the three tasks and LaRA reports accuracy. Context is the mean percentage of raw-context characters retained across the corresponding models and tasks.
Dataset
D
N
N/D
Construction
Selection
Cpre
Qasper
148
200
1.351
4,865
14,318
19,183
HotpotQA
200
200
1.000
14,827
33,418
48,245
2WikiMQA
200
200
1.000
8,903
25,403
34,306
LaRA
64
887
13.859
2,209
19,485
21,694
Appendix
Table 13: Preprocessing input-token accounting. Construction and selection columns are per-question Qwen3.6 inputs. D and N describe the indexed collection used to amortize preprocessing. Values are rounded.
Answer model
Dataset
κ∗
Raw
TreeFuse
Modeled red. (%)
Qwen3.8-Max κ=31.502
Qasper
10.24
163,591
123,773
24.3
HotpotQA
5.40
424,765
191,750
54.9
2WikiMQA
6.36
238,521
102,885
56.9
LaRA
1.66
923,552
532,473
42.3
DeepSeek-V4-Pro κ=17.149
Qasper
10.64
87,571
75,833
13.4
HotpotQA
5.75
219,470
123,776
43.6
Appendix
Table 14: Break-even thresholds and modeled reductions in proxy-weighted successful-path input work under the stated κ . Raw and TreeFuse are Qwen3.6 input-token equivalents per question, including preprocessing for TreeFuse . Percentages are computed from the displayed rounded proxy totals.
Variant
Change relative to the full method
Semantic-only
Retain semantic selections and their ancestor context.
Lexical-only (BM)
Use lexical node selection with ancestor closure and an approximately matched character budget.
Semantic-only (BM)
Add fixed-seed random nodes to the semantic selection to approach the full method’s context length.
Fixed 200
Replace semantic units with 200-token chunks and apply the same selection framework.
Chonkie
Replace units with the configured Chonkie semantic chunks.
Flat
Retain the semantic units and source text, but remove their hierarchy.
Appendix
Table 15: Changes made by each ablation variant.
Full minus
Qasper
HotpotQA
2WikiMQA
Pooled
Semantic-only
+1.14 / +0.11
+1.86 / +0.40
+0.53 / +0.56
+1.17 / +0.36
Semantic-only (BM)
+1.14 / −1.14
−0.07 / +2.42
+0.22 / +2.76
+0.41 / +1.42
Lexical-only (BM)
+16.45 / +0.60
+18.96 / +4.17
+28.46 / +8.14
+21.50 / +4.45
Appendix
Table 16: Conditional evidence and answer differences with Qwen3.8-Max. Each cell reports Δ Span Recall in percentage points / Δ QA-F1 in score points. BM denotes approximate character-budget matching.
Condition
Evidence units
Span Recall
All-hit
Mean QA-F1
Context chars.
Lexical-only (BM)
0/4
0.00
No
17.57
5,050
Full ( TreeFuse )
4/4
100.00
Yes
35.33
12,552
Appendix
Table 17: Evidence retention for the Qasper weight-adjustment case. Span Recall and QA-F1 use a 0–100 scale; QA-F1 averages three Qwen3.8-Max answer runs. BM matches mean character budgets, not individual context lengths.
Long-context inference and Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) handle evidence selection at vastly different scales, from a single long prompt to an entire corpus. We ask whether a single model-internal mechanism can select evidence across this range. We introduce UNifying REtrieval And Long-Context with a Single Model (UNREAL), a model-native evidence selection framework to span corpus retrieval and long-context inference. UNREAL encodes chunks and derives retrieval queries directly from the frozen LLM's internal representations. It adds fewer than 500K trainable parameters and leaves the backbone unchanged. On a 3B-token, 21M-chunk Wikipedia index, all four dense and hybrid UNREAL backbones outperform state-of-the-art retriever-reranker systems. The best model raises recall from 49.1% to 73.2% on HotpotQA, from 31.7% to 60.1% on 2WikiMultiHopQA, and from 8.8% to 14.4% on MuSiQue. Applied to long-context tasks, the same selection mechanism removes distractors before generation, raising NoLiMa accuracy from 1.0% to 24.83% at its maximum context length of 128K tokens, and LV-Eval's F1 score from 49.97% to 54.66% at 256K. UNREAL also reduces FLOPs and time-to-first-token relative to full-context inference from roughly 32K tokens onward, with larger gains as context grows. Together, these results establish model-internal evidence selection as a common foundation for corpus retrieval and evidence-sparse long-context inference.
Understanding and reasoning over long contexts has become a key requirement for deploying large language models (LLMs) in realistic applications. Although recent LLMs support increasingly long context windows, they often fail to use relevant evidence that is already present in the input, revealing a gap between context access and effective context utilization. In this work, we propose Recursive Evidence Replay as LLM Harness for Long-Context Reasoning (RECONTEXT), a training-free inference method for improving long-context reasoning. RECONTEXT uses model-internal relevance signals to construct a query-conditioned evidence pool and replays it before final generation while preserving the full original context. This recursive selection process separates evidence organization from answer generation without training, external memory, or context pruning. We also provide a theoretical analysis based on associative memory, which characterizes the context as a memory store, the question as a retrieval cue, attention as cue-trace association, and replay as trace reactivation. Experiments on eight long-context datasets with 128K context length show that RECONTEXT consistently improves evidence utilization across Qwen3-4B, Qwen3-8B, and Llama3-8B, achieving the best average rank on all three backbones. Code is available at https://github.com/Yanjun-Zhao/ReContext.
Large language models (LLMs) process long contexts, including long documents and lengthy conversations, but face token-level memory usage that increases proportionally to input length. Although model optimization and lossy prompt compression are widely used, these methods still fail to solve the long-context recall problem beyond pretrained and size-constrained context windows. This paper proposes a long-context recall method that maintains near-constant GPU memory usage as context length increases, without additional training. The main idea is to reconstruct facts using parameter activations in the LLM's feed-forward layers, which store residual vectors representing facts from the source document. Utilizing residual vectors allows the LLM to deterministically reconstruct query relevant facts without referencing the original document, preserving high fidelity and reducing memory usage without fine-tuning weights. Experimental results show that the proposed method enables answering single-fact questions in two-million-token story contexts where previous methods fail.