Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

LIFEBench: Evaluating Length Instruction Following in Large Language Models

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2505.16234 v2 pith:AXCPT52C submitted 2025-05-22 cs.CL cs.AI

LIFEBench: Evaluating Length Instruction Following in Large Language Models

classification cs.CL cs.AI
keywords lengthfollowingllmsmodelslifebencheveninstructionsability
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

While large language models (LLMs) can solve PhD-level reasoning problems over long context inputs, they still struggle with a seemingly simpler task: following explicit length instructions-e.g., write a 10,000-word novel. Additionally, models often generate far too short outputs, terminate prematurely, or even refuse the request. Existing benchmarks focus primarily on evaluating generations quality, but often overlook whether the generations meet length constraints. To this end, we introduce Length Instruction Following Evaluation Benchmark (LIFEBench) to comprehensively evaluate LLMs' ability to follow length instructions across diverse tasks and a wide range of specified lengths. LIFEBench consists of 10,800 instances across 4 task categories in both English and Chinese, covering length constraints ranging from 16 to 8192 words. We evaluate 26 widely-used LLMs and find that most models reasonably follow short-length instructions but deteriorate sharply beyond a certain threshold. Surprisingly, almost all models fail to reach the vendor-claimed maximum output lengths in practice, as further confirmed by our evaluations extending up to 32K words. Even long-context LLMs, despite their extended input-output windows, counterintuitively fail to improve length-instructions following. Notably, Reasoning LLMs outperform even specialized long-text generation models, achieving state-of-the-art length following. Overall, LIFEBench uncovers fundamental limitations in current LLMs' length instructions following ability, offering critical insights for future progress.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. TiCo: Time-Controllable Spoken Dialogue Model

    cs.CL 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    TiCo enables spoken dialogue models to follow explicit time constraints in generated responses using Spoken Time Markers and reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards, cutting duration error by 2.7x over its backbone.

  2. Length Value Model: Scalable Value Pretraining for Token-Level Length Modeling

    cs.CL 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    LenVM models token-level remaining generation length as a bounded discounted value function derived from constant negative per-token rewards, providing a scalable proxy for generation horizon.