TL;DR
This paper investigates how large language models internally encode and control output sequence length, revealing that attention mechanisms and specific hidden units play key roles in length management without sacrificing semantic content.
Contribution
It provides empirical evidence on the internal representations of length in LLMs, highlighting the role of attention and hidden units in length control and disentanglement from semantics.
Findings
Attention mechanisms are critical for length control.
Length information can be disentangled from semantic content.
Hidden units reflect internal awareness of output length.
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable capabilities across various tasks, that are learned from massive amounts of text-based data. Although LLMs can control output sequence length, particularly in instruction-based settings, the internal mechanisms behind this control have been unexplored yet. In this study, we provide empirical evidence on how output sequence length information is encoded within the internal representations in LLMs. In particular, our findings show that multi-head attention mechanisms are critical in determining output sequence length, which can be adjusted in a disentangled manner. By scaling specific hidden units within the model, we can control the output sequence length without losing the informativeness of the generated text, thereby indicating that length information is partially disentangled from semantic information. Moreover, some hidden units…
Peer Reviews
Decision·ICLR 2025 Conference Withdrawn Submission
The focus on internal mechanisms and the effect of adjusting them seems a nice contribution in terms of understanding how LLMs can be effectively controlled. The results suggest that this method may allow length to be controlled more directly than with other methods, and may be able to do so without too much effect on output quality.
The evaluation and comparison are hard to follow (for me at least), and it is not easy to see how the results of this method compare to the results that would be achieved using other methods (some of which are mentioned in Section 2). It is hard in places to understand how the results displayed in the tables and figures correspond to the way they are summarized in the text. I found some key details hard to understand; for example, the use of fine-tuning is important here, with experiments compa
Overall, this paper addresses an important problem with thorough experiments. However, as it stands, there were a number of issues with the presentation that decrease its correctness and potential impact (see weaknesses). 1. __Originality__ This work constitutes the first thorough experimental work on length representations in LLMs, as far as I'm aware. Although the experimental methods are not novel, their application to output length representation is. 2. __Quality__ The experimental work is
While the goals of the paper are very promising, I found the execution and presentation to be quite unclear, which lowers the contribution's potential impact. In particular, weaknesses 1-4, and especially 3, lowered my score (weakness 5 did not impact my score). 1. __Finetuning methodology__ I had trouble understanding the motivation and the details for finetuning (after reading Appendix A). 1. What data were the models fine-tuned on? 2. Why do we want to finetune the models? What do
Overall I think studying how length can be controlled through internal representations is an interesting problem with potentially useful applications, particularly if it can lead to insights on how prompt instructions relate to internal representations. I also appreciate that this study uses several different LLMs, ensuring that the findings would generalize across models.
As far as I can tell, several of the claims made in the paper are not backed up by the results. Furthermore, the paper lacks statistical reporting so it is hard to assess whether the findings are significant. I am also not convinced that the experimental methodology is sound; however, that could potentially be due to misunderstandings on my part that can be addressed by improved clarity in a future draft. See the bullet points below for detailed feedback. 1. 3.1: (a) you claim that the “length”
This paper tackles a question—controlling the length of generations—that is important and, to the best of my knowledge, still open. It attempts to provide contributions in both interpretability and controllability, demonstrating potential for real-world impact. It does so using a variety of methods: probing, causal interventions, human studies, and some qualitative analysis of outputs too.
The most serious issues with this paper are presentation-related. Because the methods and precise results are unclear, it's difficult to judge the validity of the claims made in the paper. If the methods and results are made clearer, I will be able to revise my score. I'm putting the most important questions here, but see the others in **Questions** as well. - **Unclear presentation of methods**: There are a lot of things in the methods that are unclear; the most pressing are these: - What w
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
