Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 29 references

Controlling Summarization Length Through EOS Token Weighting

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Raising the weight of the EOS token in the training objective gives fine-tuned summarization models better adherence to length limits, usually without a quality drop.

desk verdict A genuinely simple EOS-weighting trick that works in many settings, undermined by an overbroad 'always' claim and a suspicious quality metric. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.05017 v1 pith:OG5P4MK3 submitted 2025-06-05 cs.CL cs.LG

Zeno Belligoli , Emmanouil Stergiadis , Eran Fainman , Ilya Gusev This is my paper
classification cs.CLcs.LG
keywords textsummarizationlengthcontrolEOStokenweightingcross-entropylossfine-tuningROUGEBERTScoredecodingstrategies
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that a one-line change to the training objective — multiplying the loss contributed by the end-of-sentence (EOS) token by a weight $W>1$ — gives a model a direct signal about when to stop, and that this is enough to make generated summaries respect a length cap more often. This matters because existing length-control methods either alter the architecture, require training from scratch, or only act at decoding time, while this approach works by fine-tuning ordinary pretrained models and combines with decoding-time tricks. Across fine-tuned T5-base and Llama-2 7B models, greedy decoding and beam search with different length penalties, the weighted-loss model produced fewer over-length summaries in the fixed-length setting, often with roughly unchanged ROUGE-2 and BERTScore. In a dynamic-length setting where the target length is given in the prompt, the same weighting improved length adherence on CNN/Daily Mail but not on XL-sum, which the paper attributes to XL-sum's heavily right-skewed summary-length distribution. If the claim is right, length control becomes a hyperparameter of fine-tuning rather than a separate mechanism.

What carries the argument

The central object is the modified cross-entropy loss, $L_2 = -\frac{R}{N}\sum_{n=1}^{N} w_{y_n} \log p(y_n)$, where $w_{y_n} = W$ if the ground-truth token is EOS and $1$ otherwise, and $R = N/(N+W-1)$ rescales the loss so the expected gradient norm stays put. This reweighted EOS term is the only loss component that directly teaches the model when to stop, so counting it $W$ times makes the model treat a missed EOS as $W$ times worse than any other token error. With $W$ growing, the predicted length distribution shifts left and the percentage of too-long summaries falls, with diminishing returns between $W=10$ and $W=100$ in the paper's ablation.

What would settle it

Fine-tune the same model on the same data with $W=1$ and $W=10$, then measure the share of summaries exceeding the length cap on a test set whose reference summaries sit just below the cap; if the $W=10$ model does not reduce that share, the central mechanism is falsified. The XL-sum dynamic-length condition already approximates this test, since EOS weighting there fails to improve length control.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the cross-entropy loss component computed on the EOS token is the only training signal that directly teaches a summarization model where to stop, and that this signal is normally diluted by averaging over dozens or hundreds of other token losses. The paper's method reweights that single component by a factor $W$ and rescales the loss by $R = N/(N+W-1)$ so that the update norm is unchanged in expectation, turning the loss into one computed over $N-1$ ordinary tokens plus the EOS token counted $W$ times. With $W=10$ the fine-tuned models consistently produced a lower percentage of too-long summaries than the $W=1$ baseline across both architectures and all tested decoding strategies in the fixed-length experiments, while summary quality stayed about the same for T5-base and showed a trade-off for Llama-2 7B on some settings. The paper also reports that the learned stopping behavior is not a trivial truncation: models trained with $W=10$ end summaries with punctuation about as often as the baseline and much more often than a hard 250-character truncation baseline. On the dynamic-length variant the method reliably reduced too-long output on CNN/Daily Mail but failed to improve length control on XL-sum, a failure the paper connects to the shape of the training length distribution.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that boosting the EOS token's share of the loss is enough, on its own, to make the fine-tuned model follow the training length distribution more closely, and the paper advances this as an empirical hypothesis rather than a derivation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any pretrained sequence-to-sequence model that can be fine-tuned can adopt length control by editing one term in the loss, with no architectural changes.
  • The length-control effect persists when beam search with length penalties is used, so EOS weighting stacks with inference-time methods rather than replacing them.
  • Models trained this way do not resort to hard truncation: summaries end in punctuation nearly as often as baseline summaries, so the controlled length is not achieved by cutting sentences off.
  • The method's effectiveness depends on the training length distribution; on datasets whose summaries are concentrated well below the cap, the too-long rate may not improve.
  • Higher $W$ values monotonically shorten output but with diminishing returns, so the weight can be tuned as a length-versus-quality dial.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural testable extension is to make $W$ depend on the requested length $K$ in the dynamic-length setting, e.g. a larger weight for shorter targets, which could counteract the pull of a right-skewed distribution like XL-sum's.
  • Because the method only penalizes false negatives on EOS, it enforces an upper bound rather than a target length; a symmetric penalty or a length-dependent weight could turn it into exact-length control.
  • The mechanism may transfer beyond summarization to any generation task with a hard output limit, such as code generation, translation, or constrained dialogue, wherever EOS is a single token.
  • Since the effect appears even under greedy decoding, the method changes the model's internal stopping policy rather than only the beam's ranking; inspecting EOS probability trajectories under $W=1$ and $W=10$ could reveal whether the model learns a length prior or a confidence threshold.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a simple training-time method for controlling summarization length: during fine-tuning, the cross-entropy loss on the EOS token is upweighted by a hyperparameter W, together with a rescaling factor that preserves the expected loss norm. The method is tested on two datasets (CNN/DailyMail and XL-sum), two base models (T5-base and Llama-2 7B with qLoRA), and two settings: fixed-length (target a maximum number of characters) and dynamic-length (a prompt specifies the length limit). The authors report ROUGE-2 and BERTScore for quality and the percentage of too-long summaries as the primary length-control metric, across greedy and beam search decoding with length penalties. They report consistent improvements over the baseline for all fixed-length settings and for the CNN/DailyMail dynamic setting, but not for the XL-sum dynamic setting. They also compare against GPT-3.5-turbo and GPT-4o, which are found to overgenerate. The central claim is that upweighting the EOS loss improves adherence to length constraints without substantially harming quality.

Significance. The method is appealingly simple, architecture-agnostic, and complementary to decoding-time length penalties. If the effect is robust, it offers a practical tool for integrating length control into fine-tuning pipelines. The paper includes a useful ablation over W, covers multiple decoding strategies, and tests both encoder-decoder and decoder-only LLMs. However, the empirical support is weakened by a dataset-dependent failure (XL-sum dynamic), an implausible BERTScore scale, and the absence of statistical uncertainty. The core idea is worth considering, but the current evidence does not fully establish the broad claims made in the abstract and conclusions.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 5, Table 6] The XL-sum dynamic-length results directly contradict the central hypothesis of Section 3 that upweighting the EOS loss is sufficient to make the model follow the training length distribution. In Table 6, W=10 does not reduce the percentage of too-long summaries relative to W=1 for most rows (e.g., T5-base Greedy 10.4% vs 11.4%; Llama-2 Greedy 7.2% vs 9.2%; Llama-2 Beam0 3.4% vs 3.8%). The explanation given in Section 5, based on the right-skewed and bimodal training length distribution, is post hoc; no experiment manipulates the training distribution to test this explanation. Since the dynamic variant is part of the proposed methodology, the paper should either restrict its length-control claims to the fixed-length setting or provide a direct experimental test of the distribution-based explanation.
  2. [Section 4.4, Tables 1-10] The reported BERTScore values are implausibly low for standard BERTScore: e.g., 26.1 for T5-base in Table 1, 28.1 for gpt-3.5-turbo in Table 3, and 41.8 for Llama-2 in Table 10. Typical BERTScore F1 values for summarization on CNN/DailyMail and XL-sum with DeBERTa-xlarge-mnli are above 0.85, and even a 100-fold rescaling would not produce values near 26-44. The paper does not state whether F1, precision, or recall is reported, nor any normalization. This strongly suggests an evaluation artifact (e.g., wrong layer, wrong tokenizer, or misaligned references). Since the paper uses BERTScore to support the claim that length control often does not harm quality, the quality comparisons must be recomputed or the metric must be clearly redefined.
  3. [Section 5, Table 1] The hyperparameter W is selected after inspecting test-set results on the same CNN/DailyMail fixed-length setup used for the main comparisons. The text states 'This is also why we fixed W=10 for all subsequent experiments,' with no evidence of validation-based selection. This constitutes post-hoc selection on the test set and can inflate the apparent improvement in the percentage of too-long summaries. The authors should select W using a held-out validation split and only then report results on the test set.
  4. [Sections 4.4, 5, 6] No confidence intervals or significance tests are reported for any metric. Many comparisons are based on 500 test samples, where small percentage differences correspond to only a few summaries (e.g., XL-sum fixed-length Llama-2 Greedy: 1.0% vs 0.8%; XL-sum dynamic T5 Greedy: 10.4% vs 11.4%). The Conclusion states that the method 'significantly improves' adherence without statistical support. The authors should provide error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests, particularly for the primary length metric.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.2] The rounding of K to multiples of 50 (CNN/DailyMail) or 25 (XL-sum) is described, but it is not stated whether the percentage of too-long summaries is computed against the rounded K or the original K. For a summary whose length is between K and the rounded K, this affects the metric, so the convention should be made explicit.
  2. [Table 8] There are typographical errors in Table 8: '18.10' should likely be '18.1' and '32.80' should be '32.8'. In addition, decimal formatting is inconsistent across tables (e.g., '9.80' vs '9.8').
  3. [Section 4.3] The learning rate schedule differs between models (cosine for Llama-2, linear for T5-base), and the OpenAI baselines use default generation parameters with a single prompt template. These choices make the cross-model comparisons (especially with GPT models) not fully controlled; the comparisons should be interpreted with this caveat in mind.
  4. [Section 5] The statement that gpt-3.5-turbo and gpt-4o 'failed to adhere' to length constraints is based on a single prompt and default decoding parameters. A more robust comparison would vary the prompt wording or include decoding-time length penalties for the OpenAI models.
  5. [References] Reference [8] and Reference [9] are the same paper (Hermann et al., 'Teaching machines to read and comprehend') listed twice with different titles and venues; one of the two entries should be removed or consolidated.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

EOS-weighting effect is empirically real, but the central 'always controls length' claim is partially circular because W=10 is selected on the same CNN/DailyMail test set that is later reported as the headline result.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 5, Table 1 and the paragraph following it]
    "However we note there are diminishing returns after a certain value of W which in our setting lies somewhere between 10 and 100. This is also why we fixed W = 10for all subsequent experiments."

    The value W=10 is selected using Table 1, which reports the primary metric (percent of too-long summaries) on the CNN/DailyMail fixed-length test set. The same test set is then reused in Table 3 to claim that the method 'always controls length better than the baseline, across architectures and decoding strategies.' Because W=10 was chosen precisely because it lowered percent-of-too-long on that test set relative to W=1, the headline improvement on that benchmark is the tuning criterion restated as a result rather than an independent prediction. The effect is not wholly manufactured, since other datasets and decoding settings also improve, but the central 'always' claim is partially circular for the primary benchmark.

full rationale

The paper's loss modification (Eq. 2) is a straightforward reweighting of the EOS cross-entropy term; no equation-level circularity is present, and the method is evaluated against external benchmarks (CNN/DailyMail, XL-sum) and external baselines (GPT-3.5-turbo, GPT-4o). However, the hyperparameter W=10 is chosen from Table 1, which reports the primary metric '% of too long' on the CNN/DailyMail fixed-length test set, and the same test set is reused in Table 3 to support the claim that the method 'always controls length better than the baseline.' That comparison is therefore a selection artifact for the primary benchmark: W=10 was selected because it lowered the metric, and the improvement is then reported as a finding. The effect is still independently visible on other datasets and decoding settings, so the paper is not wholly circular. The XL-sum dynamic-length failure (Table 6), where W=10 does not reduce percent-of-too-long relative to W=1, is a genuine counterexample to the stated mechanism that the paper explains post hoc; that is a robustness/correctness concern, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new entities are introduced. The method is a modification of the loss function on an existing token. The main free parameter is W; the dynamic variant also rounds K. The assumptions are that EOS timing is the bottleneck for length learning and that weighting its false negatives shifts generation length left; both are empirical hypotheses the paper does not prove.

free parameters (2)
  • EOS token weight W = 10 (also tested 1, 100, 1000)
    Central hyperparameter controlling the trade-off between length control and summary quality; selected post hoc after the ablation in Table 1.
  • Dynamic K rounding stride = 50 for CNN/DailyMail, 25 for XL-sum
    Reference lengths are rounded up to these strides before prompting; a design choice that affects what the model learns to count, though not a fitted constant in the same sense.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The cross-entropy loss on the EOS token is the only loss component that directly teaches the model the summary length distribution.
    Stated in Section 3; it assumes EOS timing uniquely encodes length and ignores other aspects such as the model's propensity to continue after non-EOS tokens.
  • domain assumption Increasing W shifts generated summaries toward shorter lengths and, in the limit, makes sequences increasingly short.
    This causal link is hypothesized, not derived; the XL-sum dynamic results show it does not always hold.
  • domain assumption Each training sequence contains exactly one EOS token, so the rescaling factor R = N/(N+W-1) preserves the expected loss norm.
    True for single-sentence summaries, but the paper removes one-sentence XL-sum summaries and does not discuss multi-EOS cases.
  • standard math Standard teacher-forced maximum-likelihood training is used.
    The paper uses the usual cross-entropy loss in Eq. (1).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Controlling Summarization Length Through EOS Token Weighting." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OG5P4MK3

@misc{pith2026250605017,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Controlling Summarization Length Through EOS Token Weighting},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OG5P4MK3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.05017}
}
read the original abstract

Controlling the length of generated text can be crucial in various text-generation tasks, including summarization. Existing methods often require complex model alterations, limiting compatibility with pre-trained models. We address these limitations by developing a simple approach for controlling the length of automatic text summaries by increasing the importance of correctly predicting the EOS token in the cross-entropy loss computation. The proposed methodology is agnostic to architecture and decoding algorithms and orthogonal to other inference-time techniques to control the generation length. We tested it with encoder-decoder and modern GPT-style LLMs, and show that this method can control generation length, often without affecting the quality of the summary.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    H. P. Chan, L. Wang, and I. King. Controllable summarization with constrained Markov decision process. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 9:1213–1232, 2021. doi: 10.1162/tacl_ a_00423. URL https://aclanthology.org/2021.tacl-1.72

    doi:10.1162/tacl_ 2021

  2. [2]

    Dettmers, A

    T. Dettmers, A. Pagnoni, A. Holtzman, and L. Zettlemoyer. Qlora: Efficient finetuning of quantized llms. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024

    2024

  3. [3]

    A. Fan, D. Grangier, and M. Auli. Controllable abstractive summariza- tion. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05217, 2017

    arXiv 2017

  4. [4]

    A. Fan, D. Grangier, and M. Auli. Controllable abstractive summariza- tion. In A. Birch, A. Finch, T. Luong, G. Neubig, and Y . Oda, editors, Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Neural Machine Translation and Generation, pages 45–54, Melbourne, Australia, July 2018. Associa- tion for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/W18-2706. URL https://aclanth...

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/w18-2706 2018

  5. [5]

    Gliwa, I

    B. Gliwa, I. Mochol, M. Biesek, and A. Wawer. SAMSum cor- pus: A human-annotated dialogue dataset for abstractive summariza- tion. In L. Wang, J. C. K. Cheung, G. Carenini, and F. Liu, edi- tors, Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on New Frontiers in Summa- rization, pages 70–79, Hong Kong, China, Nov. 2019. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10...

    doi:10.18653/v1/d19-5409 2019

  6. [6]

    Hasan, A

    T. Hasan, A. Bhattacharjee, M. S. Islam, K. Samin, Y .-F. Li, Y .-B. Kang, M. S. Rahman, and R. Shahriyar. Xl-sum: Large-scale multi- lingual abstractive summarization for 44 languages. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.13822, 2021

    arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    P. He, X. Liu, J. Gao, and W. Chen. Deberta: Decoding-enhanced bert with disentangled attention. CoRR, 2020. URL http://dblp.uni-trier.de/ db/journals/corr/corr2006.html#abs-2006-03654

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    K. M. Hermann, T. Kocisky, E. Grefenstette, L. Espeholt, W. Kay, M. Su- leyman, and P. Blunsom. Teaching machines to read and comprehend. Advances in neural information processing systems , 28, 2015

    work page 2015

Show all 29 references
  1. [9]

    K. M. Hermann, T. Koˇciský, E. Grefenstette, L. Espeholt, W. Kay, M. Su- leyman, and P. Blunsom. Teaching machines to read and comprehend. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems - V olume 1, NIPS’15, page 1693–1701, Cambrid...

    2015

  2. [10]

    Hu and B

    M. Hu and B. Liu. Mining and summarizing customer reviews. In Proceedings of the Tenth ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining , KDD ’04, page 168–177, New York, NY , USA, 2004. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 1581138881. doi: 10.11...

    2004

  3. [11]

    R. Jie, X. Meng, L. Shang, X. Jiang, and Q. Liu. Prompt-based length controlled generation with reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.12030, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Kikuchi, G

    Y . Kikuchi, G. Neubig, R. Sasano, H. Takamura, and M. Okumura. Controlling output length in neural encoder-decoders. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.09552, 2016

    2016 arXiv

  5. [13]

    C.-Y . Lin. Rouge: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries. In Text summarization branches out, pages 74–81, 2004

    2004

  6. [14]

    Y . Liu, Z. Luo, and K. Zhu. Controlling length in abstractive summa- rization using a convolutional neural network. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 4110–4119, 2018

    2018

  7. [15]

    Y . Liu, Q. Jia, and K. Zhu. Length control in abstractive summarization by pretraining information selection. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (V olume 1: Long Papers), pages 6885–6895, 2022

    2022

  8. [16]

    Loshchilov and F

    I. Loshchilov and F. Hutter. Decoupled weight decay regularization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  9. [17]

    H. P. Luhn. The automatic creation of literature abstracts, 1958

    1958

  10. [18]

    Makino, T

    T. Makino, T. Iwakura, H. Takamura, and M. Okumura. Global op- timization under length constraint for neural text summarization. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computa- tional Linguistics, pages 1039–1048, 2019

    2019

  11. [19]

    Miculicich, Y

    L. Miculicich, Y . Xie, S. Wang, and P. He. Summarization with precise length control. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.05171, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Murray and D

    K. Murray and D. Chiang. Correcting length bias in neural machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.10006, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Gpt-4 technical report, 2023

    OpenAI. Gpt-4 technical report, 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    Raffel, N

    C. Raffel, N. Shazeer, A. Roberts, K. Lee, S. Narang, M. Matena, Y . Zhou, W. Li, and P. J. Liu. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 21(140):1–67, 2020. URL http://jmlr.org/papers/v21/20-074.html

    2020

  15. [23]

    A. M. Rush, S. Chopra, and J. Weston. A neural attention model for abstractive sentence summarization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1509.00685, 2015

    2015 arXiv

  16. [24]

    A. See, P. J. Liu, and C. D. Manning. Get to the point: Summarization with pointer-generator networks. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (V olume 1: Long Papers), pages 1073–1083, Vancouver, Canada, July 2017. Associ- at...

    2017 doi

  17. [25]

    Takase and N

    S. Takase and N. Okazaki. Positional encoding to control output sequence length. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.07418, 2019

    1904 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Touvron, L

    H. Touvron, L. Martin, K. Stone, P. Albert, A. Almahairi, Y . Babaei, N. Bashlykov, S. Batra, P. Bhargava, S. Bhosale, et al. Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09288, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    M. J. Witbrock and V . O. Mittal. Ultra-summarization (poster abstract): a statistical approach to generating highly condensed non-extractive summaries. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval , ...

    1999

  20. [28]

    Z. Yu, Z. Wu, H. Zheng, Z. XuanYuan, J. Fong, and W. Su. Lenatten: An effective length controlling unit for text summarization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.00316, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Zhang, V

    T. Zhang, V . Kishore, F. Wu, K. Q. Weinberger, and Y . Artzi. Bertscore: Evaluating text generation with bert. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.09675, 2019. A Complete results We report the complete results for the Fixed Length approach in Table 7 and Table 9. The complete results f...

    1904 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.