Length bias is a systematic preference for outputs of particular lengths. In RLHF and preference-based training, it can distort optimization when a proxy reward favors longer responses rather than better ones. In evaluation, the same distortion appears when an LLM judge assigns higher scores to longer answers regardless of quality. section 1.2 section 16.0
Length bias enters post-training pipelines in several places:
- Reward optimization can over-optimize a proxy signal, making output length part of the learned preference rather than a reliable quality indicator. section 1.2
- Synthetic preference data can inherit the judging model’s bias, affecting which completions are labeled chosen or rejected. section 8.4
- Chat benchmarks using LLM judges can reward verbosity independently of response quality; length-controlled variants emerged in response. section 16.0
A biased evaluation signal
Two answers may differ in length without the longer answer being better. If an LLM judge consistently scores the longer response higher, the benchmark reports a misleading quality difference and can encourage models to produce unnecessarily long outputs. section 16.0
