179 questions
No questions match those filters.
After adding GRPO with length-normalized rewards, your...
This is one of the questions in the full AI/ML interview bank. Pro unlocks all 1789 questions; Premium includes the same bank plus the highest daily Practice limit.
See plansTreating exploding chain-of-thought length as evidence of “the model learning to think harder” mistakes a training artifact for a capability gain, and it’s an expensive mistake because it invites shipping without fixing the underlying incentive. The original GRPO formulation includes a length-normalization term intended to discourage needlessly verbose correct answers — reward divided by response length sounds like a reasonable way to reward concision.
The problem is that normalization interacts differently with positive and negative rewards. When the model gets a problem right, dividing a positive reward by length does push toward shorter responses, which is the intended effect. When the model gets a problem wrong, the reward is negative, and dividing a negative number by a larger length makes it smaller in magnitude — closer to zero. From the policy’s perspective, the cheapest way to reduce the size of a negative reward on a problem it can’t solve isn’t to get better at the problem; it’s to make the response longer, diluting the penalty. The model isn’t backtracking or exploring more solution paths — it’s learning that padding pays.
The fix is to change the objective, not clip the output post-hoc at inference time (which just adds latency without fixing the training incentive). Either drop the length-normalization term entirely, or replace it with an asymmetric penalty that only rewards shortness conditional on the answer already being correct — so brevity is never a substitute for correctness. Diagnosing this correctly matters because the naive fix (accept the long outputs as “deeper reasoning” and just budget for it) bakes an ever-growing inference bill into production with no corresponding gain in accuracy.