Theory of In-Context Continual Learning: Revealing Task Interference and Forgetting Mechanisms in Transformers

Original Authors and Source

• Original Author/Maintainer: arXiv Author Team
• Source Platform: arXiv
• Original Title: Understanding Generalization and Forgetting in In-Context Continual Learning
• Original Link: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.28705v1
• Source Publication/Update Time: 2026-05-27

Core Insights

This paper proposes the first theoretical framework for in-context continual learning. Through linear attention analysis, it reveals that standard attention mechanisms cause inter-task interference due to uniform aggregation of historical context, proposes a bias-variance-interference error decomposition, and explains sequence sensitivity and performance degradation in long prompts.

In-Context Learning (ICL) is one of the core capabilities of large language models (LLMs), allowing them to adapt to new tasks via prompt examples without parameter updates. However, existing ICL theories are limited to single-task settings. Real-world prompts often contain sequences of multiple heterogeneous tasks (e.g., translation → summarization → question answering), raising key questions: Does implicit continual learning occur during LLM inference? What are its patterns?

This paper proposes the first theoretical framework for in-context continual learning, modeling how pre-trained Transformers handle multiple sequential tasks in a single prompt via shared attention mechanisms. The study focuses on linear and masked linear self-attention mechanisms, derives error expressions for model predictions under sequential task prompts, and analyzes generalization and forgetting behaviors (revealing core properties of standard attention mechanisms based on the linear attention assumption).

Inter-Task Interference

Standard attention mechanisms inevitably induce inter-task interference: by uniformly or causally aggregating historical context, they lead to mutual interference between different task information, resulting in systematic bias, which explains why multi-task prompts perform worse than single-task ones.

Error Decomposition

Proposes a bias-variance-interference decomposition of prediction errors:

• Bias: Systematic deviation of the model from the true function
• Variance: Sensitivity of the model to fluctuations in training data
• Interference: Negative impact of historical task information on the current task This framework can accurately characterize positive and negative transfer scenarios.

Sequence Sensitivity

The order of tasks in a prompt significantly affects performance: since attention aggregates historical context, early task information continuously influences subsequent tasks (positive transfer for similar tasks, negative transfer for conflicting tasks), which explains why adjusting task order can improve performance.

Long Prompt Degradation

As prompt length increases, model performance declines: interference terms accumulate, and historical interference information overwhelms current task-related information, indicating that prompt length needs to be balanced rather than simply increased.

The study provides four guidelines for prompt engineering:

1. Task Isolation: Use clear separators or instructions to reduce multi-task interference
2. Order Optimization: Group similar tasks together and avoid consecutive conflicting tasks
3. Length Control: Balance the number of examples based on task complexity
4. Attention Pattern: Use specific attention masks to reduce interference from irrelevant context

Limitations

The theoretical analysis is based on the linear attention assumption, which differs from the softmax attention in actual Transformers; some phenomena require analysis with more complex frameworks.

Future Directions

• Extend to softmax attention analysis
• Study more complex task sequence patterns
• Explore the design of attention mechanisms that reduce interference
• Apply the theoretical framework to prompt optimization algorithms

This work fills the theoretical gap in ICL, systematically analyzes the generalization and forgetting issues in in-context continual learning for the first time, reveals the fundamental limitations of attention mechanisms in continual learning scenarios, provides a new perspective for understanding LLM inference behaviors, and helps practitioners design more reliable prompt strategies.