How Much is Left? LLMs Linearly Encode Their Remaining Output Length

Large language models generate one token at a time, yet their responses show remarkably consistent length structure: step-by-step solutions converge in predictable token counts, retrievals stop after a few sentences, retractions extend responses by measurable amounts. We ask whether the model carries an internal estimate of how much response remains. Training minimal-capacity linear probes on frozen hidden states of three open-weight 7-8B models across seven completion-style datasets, we find three converging pieces of evidence. First, total response length is linearly decodable from the prompt's last hidden state alone, before any output is emitted. Second, probe directions trained on natural-language datasets transfer broadly, including to controlled synthetic completions never seen in training, outperforming a statistical baseline; the converse direction generally fails, and this asymmetry is itself informative. Third, on curated high-loss completions, the probe's per-position estimate shifts upward at the moment the model retracts and restarts a partial solution, a directional behavior no position-only predictor can reproduce (qualitative, not aggregate). We frame this as approximate estimation of remaining generation length, distinct from exact-counting impossibility results for transformers, and interpret it as evidence that LLMs maintain a plan-like internal representation of output length (decodable, not necessarily used causally).

Brevity is the Soul of Inference Efficiency: Inducing Concision in VLMs via Data Curation

Inference efficiency is typically pursued by shrinking the model: distillation, pruning, quantization, and sparse routing each lower per-token cost while treating token count as fixed. But output length has been inflating, and it is precisely the component the standard toolkit leaves untouched. Here, we argue that brevity is the missing inference-efficiency lever, and that pretraining data curation is a practical way to pull it: a model trained on concise, correct data learns to answer in fewer tokens; i.e. it has a lower Cost-of-Pass. We apply our VLM curation pipeline to the MAmmoTH-VL single-image subset, and compare models trained on our curated data, the standard MAmmoTH-VL data, and external open-weight frontier VLMs. On a controlled 20-evaluation set and 14 VLMs at 1B-4B activated parameters, we hold output length fixed with a per-model regression, separating brevity from quality, and price models in FLOPs per correct answer. Curation buys a 35x Cost-of-Pass advantage over the most verbose 4B comparator (Qwen3.5-4B) within $\sim$1 pp of accuracy (0.41 vs 14.58 TFLOPs per correct answer; 0.691 vs 0.704 mean accuracy). Curation also buys a +17.55-percentage-point matched-length accuracy gain over the uncurated baseline that grows with model scale (from +16.7 pp at 1B to +21.2 pp at 4B). This brevity improvement concedes no quality: generic verbosity buys no accuracy at any capability or scale, and the window where reasoning-structured verbosity still earns its tokens shrinks from 4 of 8 capability groups at 2B to 1 of 8 at 4B. Per example, the concise model even reaches correct answers the verbose reasoning model misses, marking reasoning as a distinct curation target rather than something brevity gives up. Inference efficiency in this regime is a tokens-per-correct problem, and brevity is the lever that targets it directly.