=== VIDEO INFORMATION ===
Title: A Survey of Context Engineering for Large Language Models
Channel: Xiaol.x
Published: 2025-07-28T11:00:17Z
Description: A Survey of Context Engineering for Large Language Models

Lingrui Mei, Jiayu Yao, Yuyao Ge, Yiwei Wang, Baolong Bi, Yujun Cai, Jiazhi Liu, Mingyu Li, Zhong-Zhi Li, Duzhen Zhang, Chenlin Zhou, Jiayi Mao, Tianze Xia, Jiafeng Guo, Shenghua Liu

The performance of Large Language Models (LLMs) is fundamentally determined by the contextual information provided during inference. This survey introduces Context Engineering, a formal discipline that transcends simple prompt design to encompass the systematic optimization of information payloads for LLMs. We present a comprehensive taxonomy decomposing Context Engineering into its foundational components and the sophisticated implementations that integrate them into intelligent systems. We first examine the foundational components: context retrieval and generation, context processing and context management. We then explore how these components are architecturally integrated to create sophisticated system implementations: retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), memory systems and tool-integrated reasoning, and multi-agent systems. Through this systematic analysis of over 1400 research papers, our survey not only establishes a technical roadmap for the field but also reveals a critical research gap: a fundamental asymmetry exists between model capabilities. While current models, augmented by advanced context engineering, demonstrate remarkable proficiency in understanding complex contexts, they exhibit pronounced limitations in generating equally sophisticated, long-form outputs. Addressing this gap is a defining priority for future research. Ultimately, this survey provides a unified framework for both researchers and engineers advancing context-aware AI.

https://www.arxiv.org/abs/2507.13334

=== TRANSCRIPT ===
Welcome, curious minds, to another deep
dive. Today, we're plunging into the
fascinating world of large language
models, specifically focusing on, well,
a really crucial area that's rapidly
defining their capabilities.
Context engineering.
You know, it all started so innocently,
didn't it? It feels like ages ago now.
We'd craft a prompt just, you know, a
simple string of text, throw it in an
LLM, and kind of think, "All right, job
done." Oh god.
It was also funny in retrospect like
sending this super smart but totally
naive intern into I don't know the
Library of Congress with just one
keyword and expecting have a perfect PhD
thesis back. Yeah.
And then the realization hit. These LLMs
need so much more. They need dynamic
structured um alive information to truly
perform that single string. That was
honestly just scratching the surface.
You've absolutely nailed the evolution
there. What started as prompt
engineering, which felt more like an
art, you know, finding the magic words,
right,
has rapidly matured. It's become this
formal systematic discipline we now call
context engineering. It's not just about
the prompt anymore.
Not at all.
No, it's about the entire intelligent
process sourcing, shaping, managing the
information we feed these powerful
models, what we sometimes call their
information payloads.
And when we say systematic, we really
mean it. For this deep dive, we've uh
gone through and distilled insights from
over 1,400 research papers on this. It's
a huge amount of work out there.
It really is.
And what we found was frankly a bit of a
mess.
Yeah.
Fragmented, brilliant ideas everywhere,
but often siloed. You know, people
working on one piece without seeing the
whole picture.
Yeah. A lot of parallel work, not always
connected.
Exactly. So, our mission today is to
build a map for you, a clear taxonomy,
connect those dots. We're talking about
how LLM's breathe, how they process, how
they understand information. It's like
designing a whole new brain for them,
basically.
That's a great way to put it. We'll be
breaking down context engineering into
its foundational components. Think of
them as the essential building blocks.
Okay?
And then we'll show you how these blocks
are integrated into sophisticated
intelligence systems, systems that are
really pushing the boundaries of what
LLM can do.
And we'll also get into a really
interesting challenge, right? Something
you called a fundamental asymmetry.
Yes, exactly. a critical almost poetic
gap that all this innovation has
revealed. It's becoming the next big
frontier in AI research.
Okay, can't wait to get to that. But
let's start at the beginning. Why? Why
did we need to move beyond just
prompting? What was the core limitation
that really sparked this whole context
engineering explosion? The fundamental
issue really is that an LLM's
performance is just so deeply tied to
the quality and relevance of the context
it gets during operation, during
inference.
Makes sense. Garbage in, garbage out,
even for AI
pretty much. Yeah. Simple static prompt
design. It was a crucial first step,
don't get me wrong, but it's just not
enough for complex real world tasks.
Yeah.
It doesn't allow for dynamic,
structured, and active information
management.
Too rigid.
Exactly. And the field itself was
fragmented. You had researchers looking
at retrieval over here, long context
over there, memory somewhere else, all
in isolation. It obscured critical
connections. Our sources, I mean, across
the board, they highlight that a unified
framework was urgently needed to
systematize all these different
techniques and really illuminate how
they depend on each other. Without that
framework, progress was getting well, a
bit haphazard. So, if I'm hearing you
right, it's about making sure the LLM
isn't just getting some information, but
the ideal information for whatever it's
trying to do, like a superefficient
delivery system for knowledge.
You've absolutely got it. From an
optimization standpoint, context
engineering is basically about finding
the best set of context generating
functions, the processes that gather and
shape information to maximize the
quality of the LLM's output. Okay,
it's moving from that initial art of
crafting a clever prompt to the um the
real science of information logistics,
giving the LL exactly what it needs when
it needs it in the best possible format.
So, if we're designing this
uh advanced info delivery system for an
AI brain, what are the core parts, the
absolute musthaves for it to make sense
of the world?
The research really points to three
foundational components. First up is
context retrieval and generation. Okay.
And this isn't just about writing the
prompt. Crucially, it involves acquiring
external knowledge, often dynamically.
So, looking things up.
Yeah. Think of it as how the LLM looks
up information or sometimes even creates
it on the fly. Pulling facts from a
database, searching the web for breaking
news, maybe summarizing a relevant
document before it even hits the main
model. It's that critical first step of
assembling the facts.
Got it. And once it has that
information, maybe even lots of
information, what's the next challenge?
Handling huge amounts of text must be
tricky.
That brings us right to the second
building block, context processing. This
is all about how LLM handle really long
sequences of information, scaling up
those context windows from maybe a few
thousand tokens to potentially millions.
Brillions. Wow.
Yeah, it's a huge leap. Historically,
the transformer architectures that
underpin most LLMs, they suffered from
what's called quadratic computational
complexity.
Sounds expensive.
It was. Basically, as the text got
longer, the compute cost just exploded.
It made processing truly long texts
prohibitively expensive, as the papers
say.
Like trying to cram War and Peace into a
calculator,
something like that. But here's where
some key innovations really change the
game. Things like flash attention and
then flash attention too. Okay, what do
they do?
They're clever. They exploit the way
GPUs store and access memory, the memory
hierarchy to achieve something amazing.
Linear memory scaling. Basically, making
the cost grow linearly with text length,
not quadratically.
Ah, much more manageable.
Much more without diving too deep into
the uh the technical weeds of non-matrix
multiplication operations. The practical
result is they effectively double
processing speed in many cases. It makes
feeding LLM's massive amounts of text
actually feasible.
That's a huge unlock. But is it perfect?
Not quite. Even with these advances, we
still run into this weird issue called
the lost in the middle phenomenon.
Lost in the middle. What's that? Sounds
relatable.
It kind of is. It's this surprising
quirk where LLMs really struggle to
access or use information if it's buried
deep in the middle of a very long
context. They perform much better when
key details are right at the beginning
or right at the very end of the input
text.
So they remember the first and last
thing you told them but forget the
middle
basically. Yes. And this isn't just a
minor glitch. It can cause performance
to drop by like up to 73% on tasks that
really need that long-term recall or
pulling specifics from big documents.
Wow. 73%. That's massive.
It is. So, while we can feed them more
information, the LLM isn't always
reliably using all of it effectively.
And context processing isn't just about
length. It also involves things like
self-refinement,
the model improving itself.
Yeah. Where the model iteratively
improves its own understanding or output
and also integrating structured
information like taking those knowledge
graph triples, you know, subject
predicate object facts like Paris is
capital of France and turning them into
natural language. the LLM can easily
work with.
Fascinating. So, it's way more than just
stuffing text in. It's how you handle
it, how you process it, overcoming these
weird limitations. Okay, so once it's
processed, how do you keep track of it
all? How do you manage this potentially
huge amount of context?
Yeah, that leads us to the third
foundational component, context
management. This covers strategies like
memory hierarchies, sophisticated
compression techniques, and various
optimization methods.
Why compression? to maximize the
information density within the LLM's
finite context window. You want the most
useful information packed in there while
still keeping it accessible. It directly
tackles that fundamental constraint and
LLM can only hold so much in its
immediate working memory at once.
So, it's about making the LLM's
short-term memory super efficient and
organized, not just a messy data dump.
Are there any particularly cool
approaches here?
Yeah, some really interesting ones. Many
memory optimization techniques actually
draw inspiration from biology, from how
our brains work.
Like what?
Like implementing biologically inspired
forgetting mechanisms. Think of the
ebing house forgetting curve. The idea
that memories fade over time unless
reinforced,
right? Use it or lose it.
Exactly. These systems can selectively
preserve or discard information based on
how important it seems or how recently
it was accessed. This helps the LLM
prioritize what's truly vital for the
current task, preventing it from getting
overwhelmed by old or irrelevant
details, especially in longer
interactions.
Okay, that makes a lot of sense. So, we
have these building blocks, retrieval
and generation, processing and
management, getting info, handling it,
keeping it organized. Now, for the
really fun part, how do researchers
actually combine these to build truly
intelligent systems?
Right, this is where it gets
sophisticated. The research highlights
four key system implementations where
these components come together. The
first one is probably familiar but with
a twist. Retrieval augmented generation
or AGA. But it's ARGA um smarter, much
smarter.
Like Rag got an upgrade. Rag 2.0.
You could definitely call it that. We're
seeing things like modular edge
architectures. Think plugandplay. Okay.
They allow flexible composition of
different retrieval components. You can
swap modules in and out, different
retrievers, different rerankers to
perfectly tailor the system for a
specific task. Frameworks like flash rag
offer a toolkit for this with core
modules you can adjust independently.
So much more adaptable.
Exactly. And compose rag even adds
self-reflection, letting the system
iteratively refine its retrieval
strategy based on past performance.
Wow. So rag isn't just fetching
documents anymore. It's actively
learning how to fetch better
information. That's cool.
It really is. And building on that idea,
we get agentic rag systems. This is
where you embed autonomous AI agents
inside the arbback pipeline.
Agents within a rag. How does that work?
Instead of just passive retrieval, these
agents act like intelligent
investigators. They can dynamically
analyze the query, cross reference
information sources, even plan multiple
steps, reflect on the results, and adapt
their workflow. Think frameworks like
React or reflection. They interle
reasoning and action. The AI thinks
about what it needs, then acts to get
it.
That sounds like a huge step up. Like
having a tiny research team inside the
AI actively figuring out the best way to
answer your question, not just pulling
the first thing it finds. What about
this graph-enhanced AG? You mentioned
knowledge graphs earlier,
right? This marks a significant shift.
Instead of just relying on unstructured
documents, it leverages structured
knowledge bases, primarily knowledge
graphs.
Remind me what's the key advantage of
knowledge graphs again? They capture
entity relationships and semantic
connections explicitly. So instead of
just text saying Einstein was born in M,
the graph knows Einstein is a person is
a city and the relationship is boring.
It's structured data. Systems like
caping or karpa can retrieve specific
relevant facts these triples from the
graph and just propend them to the LLM
prompt often without needing any extra
model training. And tools like think on
graph allow the LLM to perform
sequential reasoning over the graph to
find complex answers.
And the big win for the user here is
more accuracy, fewer mistakes.
Definitely that's a major payoff.
Knowledge graphs can dramatically reduce
hallucinations because the LLM's
response is grounded in verifiable
structured facts. That's not just making
connections based on text patterns,
right? and they seriously boost
reasoning capabilities, especially for
those tricky multihop questions where
you need to connect several pieces of
information. The structured
relationships provide something that raw
text just can't.
This all sounds incredibly powerful, but
it also sounds like these systems are
juggling a lot of information. How do
they actually remember things
consistently, especially over longer
periods or interactions? Are they
building a persistent memory?
That's a critical question, and it leads
us directly to the development of
explicit memory systems for LLMs.
Researchers are now designing systems
that classify memory into categories,
much like psychologists talk about human
memory,
like short-term and long-term.
Exactly. Sensory, short-term, and
long-term. Short-term might be like a
temporary cache for immediate context,
maybe using a key value store. Long-term
memory, though, involves external
persistent storage databases. Vector
stores, things the LLM can query to
recall past information, much like we
access our stored knowledge.
So, they're really trying to mimic human
cognitive architecture. That's
ambitious.
It is. And interestingly, studies show
LLMs with these memory systems exhibit
primacy and recency effects just like
humans. They tend to recall information
better from the beginning and the end of
a stored sequence or conversation.
Huh. The similarities are fascinating,
but how well does it actually work?
Well, that's the tricky part. Evaluating
these memory systems is hard, partly
because many LLM interactions are still
fundamentally stateless. But benchmarks
like Longme are starting to give us
insights. And frankly, they're a bit
sobering.
Oh,
they show that even sophisticated
commercial AI assistants can suffer a
pretty shocking 30% drop in accuracy
during prolonged interactions,
especially when it comes to episodic
memory remembering specific past events
in the conversation contextualized with
time and details.
Wait, a 30% drop. So, even with these
advanced memory systems, they can still
significantly forget what you were
talking about just minutes earlier.
That's
well it's relatable for coffee but for
an AI that's a huge bottleneck for real
world use.
It absolutely is. It's a major ongoing
challenge.
Okay, moving on. The next big
implementation is tool integrated
reasoning. This is genuinely a paradigm
shift.
How so?
Instead of only relying on the knowledge
baked into the model during training,
LLMs can now dynamically interact with
and use external resources. Think search
engines, calculators, code interpreters,
databases, specific APIs. So the LLM
isn't just a brain in a VAD anymore. It
can actually do things.
Exactly. Tools directly address
fundamental LLM limitations like their
knowledge cutoff dates. A tool can get
real-time information or calculation
errors. A tool can use a proper
calculator or needing to execute code.
Makes sense.
Frameworks like React, which we
mentioned with the gent are key here
too. They interle the thinking steps
with acting steps using a tool. And
systems like Chameleon can even
synthesize complex plans involving
multiple tools, vision models, search,
Python functions to solve really tricky
problems.
That sounds incredibly powerful. Is it
closing the gap with human abilities?
It's making progress, but there are
still significant gaps. There's a
benchmark called GIA designed to test
these general assistant capabilities,
tasks requiring common sense, tool use,
multi-step reasoning,
and how do the AIs do? Humans score
around 92% accuracy on GAIAA, the best
tool using LLM, even GPT4. They're
currently topping out around 15%.
15%. Wow. Okay, that puts it in
perspective. There's still a long way to
go for that kind of general capability.
A very long way. And it highlights the
need for better ways to teach models how
to use tools effectively. Approaches
like reinforcement learning with systems
like Retool are emerging to help models
autonomously figure out the best
strategies for tool usage. So, we need
AIs that aren't just given tools, but
learn how and when to use them
optimally. Okay, what's the final piece
of this puzzle? When you bring multiple
AIs together,
that brings us to the absolute cutting
edge. Multi- aent systems. This is
really the pinnacle, aiming for
collaborative intelligence. Multiple
autonomous agents coordinating and
communicating to solve problems far too
complex for any single agent.
Like building an AI society, almost an
AI project team.
That's a good analogy. And it requires
incredibly sophisticated underpinning
technologies. Communication protocols
are vital things like MCP, which some
have called the USBC for AI because it
aims to standardize how different agents
talk to each other, and A2A for agentto
agent comms.
Standardization makes sense for
interoperability.
Absolutely. And then you need
orchestration mechanisms, systems to
manage which agent does what, when, and
how they interact. Frameworks like
OpenAI's swarm agent concept use
real-time outputs from one agent to
trigger actions or tool use by another.
It's about managing the flow.
Sounds incredibly complex to manage.
What are the big roadblocks here?
One huge challenge is maintaining what's
called transactional integrity across
these complex multi-step workflows
involving multiple agents.
Transactional integrity. What does that
mean in plain English?
Imagine that AI team working on a
project. If one agent makes a decision
based on information from another agent,
but then that first agent forgets or
misunderstands something crucial later
on, the whole system state can become
inconsistent.
Ah, so keeping everyone on the same page
reliably throughout a long task.
Exactly. Preventing goal deviation
because of miscommunication or forgotten
context between agents. It's about
ensuring the whole collaborative process
is robust and reliable. Frameworks like
SegaM are specifically trying to tackle
this by providing better transaction
support for these multi- aent systems.
You know, stepping back and looking at
all this intense research, handling
massive context, integrating tools,
coordinating multiple agents, it throws
a critical research gap into really
sharp relief. It reveals this
fundamental almost poetic asymmetry in
LLM capabilities.
Ah, okay. This is the puzzle you
mentioned, the next big frontier.
Precisely. While today's models,
especially when augmented with all these
advanced context engineering techniques
we've discussed, show truly remarkable
skill in understanding complex context.
Yeah. They can follow incredibly complex
instructions, connect distant ideas.
Exactly. They can parse nuance, track
dependencies across vast amounts of
text, but they exhibit really pronounced
limitations when it comes to generating
equally sophisticated outputs,
especially long form, coherently
structured novel creations that fully
leverage that deep understanding.
So, let me see if I get this. They can
read and perfectly understand, say, a
complex novel with intricate plot lines
and themes. But if you ask them to write
their own novel with similar depth and
coherence, it falls short.
That's a perfect analogy. They can grasp
the Mona Lisa, but painting their own
masterpiece is still well not quite
there. bridging this gap, the gap
between their profound understanding and
their ability to generate equally
profound long form coherent output.
That's arguably the defining challenge
for the next wave of AI research.
That is fascinating. The input
processing is way ahead of the output
generation.
Okay, this obviously raises another huge
question. With all these complex
interconnected parts, retrieval, memory,
agents, tools, how on earth do you even
evaluate if it's working well? Surely
old school benchmarks don't cut it.
You're absolutely right. They don't. The
sheer heterogeneity of context
engineering components means static
simple metrics like Bleu or Rouge which
just compare generated text to a
reference. They're fundamentally
inadequate.
They don't capture the process. Exactly.
They can't assess the quality of a
reasoning chain or the effectiveness of
tool use or emergent collaborative
behaviors in multi- aent systems.
And we already touched on the evaluation
challenges for memory, that
statelessness problem, the 30% accuracy
drop in commercial assistance, right?
And for tool use, that GIA benchmark
showing the massive gap between human
92% and AI 15%. Performance starkly
illustrates the limitations of current
evaluation and capabilities.
So if the old ways don't work, what are
the new approaches? How are researchers
trying to get a clearer, more meaningful
picture of performance?
The field is moving towards more dynamic
and holistic evaluation paradigms. One
important trend is self-refinement
evaluation.
How does that work? Instead of just
testing a single output, you assess the
systems ability to improve over multiple
cycles. Frameworks like self-refine and
reflection literally have the model
critique its own work, get feedback, and
then iterate to produce a better result.
You evaluate the improvement process,
evaluating the learning, not just the
final answer.
Precisely. There's also a push for
multi-aspect feedback. and using
specialized critic models. Other AIs
trained specifically to evaluate outputs
based on detailed criteria like
coherence, factuality, helpfulness,
safety.
So AI evaluating AI
in a structured way. Yes. Ultimately,
the goal is to move towards living
benchmarks, evaluation suites that
constantly evolve alongside AI
capabilities, staying relevant as the
technology advances, and tracking
long-term autonomy, how well these
systems perform reliably, and safely
over extended periods.
It's not just about being effective, but
also safe, robust, aligned with our
values,
especially as they get integrated into
more critical parts of society.
That's becoming paramount. What really
strikes me from everything we've
discussed is that context engineering
isn't just some clever technical fix or
the latest buzzword. It feels much more
fundamental. It's like the emerging
science of making LLMs truly aware of
and responsive to their environment and
history.
I think that's right.
It's about bridging that gap we talked
about bridging what these models know or
can access with how they actually use
that knowledge to reason, to act, and
ultimately to create in the world.
Absolutely. This systematic approach to
well information logistics and system
optimization is truly foundational. It
underpins pretty much every advanced AI
system being built now and I suspect all
those yet to come. It's a field that's
rapidly moving from focusing on isolated
components to designing these complex
integrated architectures
and the challenges are growing just as
fast
exponentially. It demands increasingly
interdisciplinary thinking combining
insights from computer science,
cognitive science, linguistics, systems
engineering.
So for you, our listener, wrestling with
how AI is changing things as these
models continue to evolve and weave
themselves deeper into our work and
lives, the core idea we unpack today
seems crucial. The idea that an AI's
performance is just fundamentally
determined by the context it receives
and how it manages it, that's going to
remain central.
It really is. It provides a kind of road
map, doesn't it, for understanding where
intelligent systems are heading from
basic prompts all the way up to these
complex multi- aenting collaborations.
This deep dive, I hope, reveals not just
the exciting technological leaps, but
also the profound questions we're now
grappling with. How do we truly enable
AI to reason effectively, to remember
reliably, to collaborate successfully,
and maybe most importantly, to generate
outputs that match their sophisticated
understanding. It's about designing a
much more intelligent conversation both
with the AI and within the AI itself.
And maybe to leave you with something to
dash you on, here's a provocative
thought for your own next step. As these
AI agents become ever more
interconnected, more autonomous,
operating with these vast, dynamically
managed contexts, what new forms of
emerging intelligence or perhaps
entirely new, unforeseen challenges
might bubble up that we can't even
predict right now? Something to mull
over until our next deep dive?