mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Quality Determines Direction, Length Shapes Magnitude: Length Control for Open-Ended Reinforcement Learning

arXiv 2609.34718 ↗First posted 28 Sep 2026cs.LG cs.CLcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Reinforcement learning (RL) changes not only what language models say, but also how much they say, often increasing response length at the cost of token efficiency. Controlling this length growth is particularly challenging in open-ended RL because (i) response length is entangled with quality, (ii) open-ended tasks lack a natural success boundary for deciding when efficiency should be prioritized, and (iii) dense, graded rewards often yield small within-group quality margins, making quality-induced advantages especially sensitive to reward-level length shaping, which can perturb their magnitudes and even reverse their signs. We therefore adopt an asymmetric principle: quality should determine the direction of reinforcement, while length should only shape its magnitude. We instantiate this principle with Quality-Gated Length Advantage Shaping (QGLAS), which first computes advantages from quality rewards alone, then adds bounded bonuses only to shorter positive-advantage responses, leaving all other advantages unchanged. The bonus strength is further adapted to within-group quality separation, allowing conciseness to matter more when quality-favored responses are similar and less when their quality differences are clear. Across different model families, open-ended benchmarks, and reward sources, QGLAS consistently achieves a stronger quality--length trade-off than representative baselines. At approximately 30% compression, QGLAS retains 98.4--102.0% of the macro-average quality gains achieved by quality-only RL over the base model, compared with 68.3--75.5% for these baselines at comparable compression.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 24 of its 28 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 28 Sep 2026.

Builds on

24 of 28 references.

References · 24

  1. 2025DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learningcited by 6,146
  2. 2025Understanding R1-Zero-Like Training: A Critical Perspectivecited by 1,276
  3. 2024From Crowdsourced Data to High-Quality Benchmarks: Arena-Hard and BenchBuilder Pipelinecited by 484
  4. 2025L1: Controlling How Long A Reasoning Model Thinks With Reinforcement Learningcited by 381
  5. 2025Skywork-Reward-V2: Scaling Preference Data Curation via Human-AI Synergycited by 204
  6. 2025Generalizing Verifiable Instruction Followingcited by 178
  7. 2024ODIN: Disentangled Reward Mitigates Hacking in RLHFcited by 133
  8. 2025Nemotron 3 Nano: Open, Efficient Mixture-of-Experts Hybrid Mamba-Transformer Model for Agentic Reasoningcited by 85
  9. 2025Jointly Reinforcing Diversity and Quality in Language Model Generationscited by 79
  10. 2023Loose lips sink ships: Mitigating Length Bias in Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedbackcited by 78
  11. 2024RRM: Robust Reward Model Training Mitigates Reward Hackingcited by 75
  12. 2025Learn to Reason Efficiently with Adaptive Length-based Reward Shapingcited by 74
12 more
  1. 2025Just Enough Thinking: Efficient Reasoning with Adaptive Length Penalties Reinforcement Learningcited by 51
  2. 2024Explaining Length Bias in LLM-Based Preference Evaluationscited by 48
  3. 2025Shorten After You're Right: Lazy Length Penalties for Reasoning RLcited by 25
  4. 2025Leash: Adaptive Length Penalty and Reward Shaping for Efficient Large Reasoning Modelcited by 13
  5. 2025Not All Tokens Matter: Towards Efficient LLM Reasoning via Token Significance in Reinforcement Learningcited by 9
  6. 2025Your Models Have Thought Enough: Training Large Reasoning Models to Stop Overthinkingcited by 9
  7. 2026Tackling Length Inflation Without Trade-offs: Group Relative Reward Rescaling for Reinforcement Learningcited by 7
  8. 2026Think Dense, Not Long: Dynamic Decoupled Conditional Advantage for Efficient Reasoningcited by 5
  9. 2023Preference as Reward, Maximum Preference Optimization with Importance Samplingcited by 4
  10. 2026On the Optimal Reasoning Length for RL-Trained Language Modelscited by 3
  11. 2026LACONIC: Length-Aware Constrained Reinforcement Learning for LLMcited by 3
  12. 2026Prompt-Level Reward Specifications for Open-Ended Post-Trainingcited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.