mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

On the probability-quality paradox in language generation

arXiv 2203.17217 ↗First posted 31 Mar 2022cs.CLcited by 16

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

When generating natural language from neural probabilistic models, high probability does not always coincide with high quality: It has often been observed that mode-seeking decoding methods, i.e., those that produce high-probability text under the model, lead to unnatural language. On the other hand, the lower-probability text generated by stochastic methods is perceived as more human-like. In this note, we offer an explanation for this phenomenon by analyzing language generation through an information-theoretic lens. Specifically, we posit that human-like language should contain an amount of information (quantified as negative log-probability) that is close to the entropy of the distribution over natural strings. Further, we posit that language with substantially more (or less) information is undesirable. We provide preliminary empirical evidence in favor of this hypothesis; quality ratings of both human and machine-generated text -- covering multiple tasks and common decoding strategies -- suggest high-quality text has an information content significantly closer to the entropy than we would expect by chance.

Key facts. Cited by 16 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 34 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 31 Mar 2022.

Builds on

20 of 34 references.

References · 20

  1. 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,199
  2. 2019BART: Denoising Sequence-to-Sequence Pre-training for Natural Language Generation, Translation, and Comprehensioncited by 5,874
  3. 2019The Curious Case of Neural Text Degenerationcited by 2,881
  4. 2018Hierarchical Neural Story Generationcited by 1,182
  5. 2016Abstractive Text Summarization Using Sequence-to-Sequence RNNs and Beyondcited by 809
  6. 2016Diverse Beam Search: Decoding Diverse Solutions from Neural Sequence Modelscited by 299
  7. 2021All That's 'Human' Is Not Gold: Evaluating Human Evaluation of Generated Textcited by 287
  8. 2020Is MAP Decoding All You Need? The Inadequacy of the Mode in Neural Machine Translationcited by 137
  9. 2020On the Predictive Power of Neural Language Models for Human Real-Time Comprehension Behaviorcited by 115
  10. 2019On NMT Search Errors and Model Errors: Cat Got Your Tongue?cited by 114
  11. 2020If beam search is the answer, what was the question?cited by 114
  12. 2020Trading Off Diversity and Quality in Natural Language Generationcited by 94
8 more
  1. 2022On Decoding Strategies for Neural Text Generatorscited by 89
  2. 2019Comparison of Diverse Decoding Methods from Conditional Language Modelscited by 78
  3. 2020Consistency of a Recurrent Language Model With Respect to Incomplete Decodingcited by 54
  4. 2021A surprisal--duration trade-off across and within the world's languagescited by 22
  5. 2020Decoding Methods for Neural Narrative Generationcited by 18
  6. 2021How (Non-)Optimal is the Lexicon?cited by 11
  7. 2021A Cognitive Regularizer for Language Modelingcited by 11
  8. 2020Mirostat: A Neural Text Decoding Algorithm that Directly Controls Perplexitycited by 8

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2022: 6; 2023: 4; 2024: 2; 2025: 1; 2026: 3.

16 papers.

Sort:

By area: