Skip to content
← Back to explorer

The Position Curse: LLMs Struggle to Locate the Last Few Items in a List

Zhanqi Zhang, Hua-Dong Xiong, Robert C. Wilson, Mikio Aoi, Marcelo G. Mattar, Li Ji-An · May 8, 2026 · Citations: 0

Automatic Metrics
Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Modern large language models (LLMs) can find a needle in a haystack (locating a single relevant fact buried among hundreds of thousands of irrelevant tokens) with near-saturated accuracy, yet fail to retrieve the last few items in a short list. We call this failure the Position Curse. For instance, even in a two-line code snippet, Claude Opus 4.6 misidentifies the second-to-last line most of the time. To characterize this failure, we evaluated two complementary queries: given a position in a sequence (of letters or words), retrieve the corresponding item; and given an item, return its position. Each position is specified as a forward or backward offset from an anchor, either an endpoint of the list (its start or end) or another item in the list. Across both open-source and frontier closed-source models, backward retrieval substantially lags forward retrieval. To test whether this capability can be rescued by post-training, we constructed PosBench, a position-focused training dataset. LoRA fine-tuning improves both forward and backward retrieval and generalizes to a held-out code-understanding benchmark (PyIndex), yet absolute performance remains far from saturated. As LLM coding agents increasingly operate over large codebases where precise indexing becomes essential for code understanding and editing, position-based retrieval emerges as a key capability for future pretraining objectives and model design.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

  • This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
  • The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A benchmark-and-metrics comparison anchor.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

5/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 45%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"Modern large language models (LLMs) can find a needle in a haystack (locating a single relevant fact buried among hundreds of thousands of irrelevant tokens) with near-saturated accuracy, yet fail to retrieve the last few items in a short list."

Evaluation Modes

partial

Automatic Metrics

Includes extracted eval setup.

"Modern large language models (LLMs) can find a needle in a haystack (locating a single relevant fact buried among hundreds of thousands of irrelevant tokens) with near-saturated accuracy, yet fail to retrieve the last few items in a short list."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"Modern large language models (LLMs) can find a needle in a haystack (locating a single relevant fact buried among hundreds of thousands of irrelevant tokens) with near-saturated accuracy, yet fail to retrieve the last few items in a short list."

Benchmarks / Datasets

partial

Needle In A Haystack, Posbench

Useful for quick benchmark comparison.

"Modern large language models (LLMs) can find a needle in a haystack (locating a single relevant fact buried among hundreds of thousands of irrelevant tokens) with near-saturated accuracy, yet fail to retrieve the last few items in a short list."

Reported Metrics

partial

Accuracy

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

"Modern large language models (LLMs) can find a needle in a haystack (locating a single relevant fact buried among hundreds of thousands of irrelevant tokens) with near-saturated accuracy, yet fail to retrieve the last few items in a short list."

Human Feedback Details

  • Uses human feedback: No
  • Feedback types: None
  • Rater population: Not reported
  • Expertise required: Coding

Evaluation Details

  • Evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics
  • Agentic eval: None
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Evidence quality: Low
  • Use this page as: Background context only

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

Needle In A HaystackPosbench

Reported Metrics

accuracy

Research Brief

Metadata summary

Modern large language models (LLMs) can find a needle in a haystack (locating a single relevant fact buried among hundreds of thousands of irrelevant tokens) with near-saturated accuracy, yet fail to retrieve the last few items in a short list.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • Modern large language models (LLMs) can find a needle in a haystack (locating a single relevant fact buried among hundreds of thousands of irrelevant tokens) with near-saturated accuracy, yet fail to retrieve the last few items in a short list.
  • For instance, even in a two-line code snippet, Claude Opus 4.6 misidentifies the second-to-last line most of the time.
  • To characterize this failure, we evaluated two complementary queries: given a position in a sequence (of letters or words), retrieve the corresponding item; and given an item, return its position.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Validate inferred eval signals (Automatic metrics) against the full paper.
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended Queries

Accuracy

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • Modern large language models (LLMs) can find a needle in a haystack (locating a single relevant fact buried among hundreds of thousands of irrelevant tokens) with near-saturated accuracy, yet fail to retrieve the last few items in a short…
  • LoRA fine-tuning improves both forward and backward retrieval and generalizes to a held-out code-understanding benchmark (PyIndex), yet absolute performance remains far from saturated.
  • As LLM coding agents increasingly operate over large codebases where precise indexing becomes essential for code understanding and editing, position-based retrieval emerges as a key capability for future pretraining objectives and model…

Why It Matters For Eval

  • LoRA fine-tuning improves both forward and backward retrieval and generalizes to a held-out code-understanding benchmark (PyIndex), yet absolute performance remains far from saturated.
  • As LLM coding agents increasingly operate over large codebases where precise indexing becomes essential for code understanding and editing, position-based retrieval emerges as a key capability for future pretraining objectives and model…

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Pass: Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Automatic Metrics

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Pass: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    Detected: Needle In A Haystack, Posbench

  • Pass: Metric reporting is present

    Detected: accuracy

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

Get Started

Join the #1 Platform for AI Training Talent

Where top AI builders and expert AI Trainers connect to build the future of AI.
Self-Service
Post a Job
Post your project and get a shortlist of qualified AI Trainers and Data Labelers. Hire and manage your team in the tools you already use.
Create Account & Post a Job
Managed Service
For Large Projects
Done-for-You
We recruit, onboard, and manage a dedicated team inside your tools. End-to-end operations for large or complex projects.
Learn About Managed Service
For Freelancers
Join as an AI Trainer
Find AI training and data labeling projects across platforms, all in one place. One profile, one application process, more opportunities.
Join Now