Penalty Decoding: Well Suppress the Self-Reinforcement Effect in Open-Ended Text Generation
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
The decoding algorithm is critical for open-ended text generation, transforming latent representations into coherent and meaningful outputs. This paper investigates the self-reinforcement effect in text generation and the effectiveness of a repetition penalty to mitigate it. However, determining the optimal repetition penalty value is challenging. To tackle this, we propose a forgetting mechanism that disregards distant tokens, reducing the burden of penalty selection. In addition, we introduce a length penalty to address overly short sentences caused by excessive penalties. Our penalty decoding approach incorporating three strategies helps resolve issues with sampling methods deviating from factual information. Experimental results demonstrate the efficacy of our approach in generating high-quality sentences resembling human output.
Key facts. Cited by 13 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 14 of its 22 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 23 Oct 2023.
Builds on
14 of 22 references.
References · 14
- 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 59,932
- 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,199
- 2019The Curious Case of Neural Text Degenerationcited by 2,881
- 2022Self-Instruct: Aligning Language Models with Self-Generated Instructionscited by 2,674
- 2018Hierarchical Neural Story Generationcited by 1,182
- 2019CTRL: A Conditional Transformer Language Model for Controllable Generationcited by 754
- 2021MAUVE: Measuring the Gap Between Neural Text and Human Text using Divergence Frontierscited by 466
- 2016A Corpus and Evaluation Framework for Deeper Understanding of Commonsense Storiescited by 413
- 2022A Contrastive Framework for Neural Text Generationcited by 224
- 2022Truncation Sampling as Language Model Desmoothingcited by 121
- 2019Don't Say That! Making Inconsistent Dialogue Unlikely with Unlikelihood Trainingcited by 110
- 2022Learning to Break the Loop: Analyzing and Mitigating Repetitions for Neural Text Generationcited by 90
2 more
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 2; 2025: 4; 2026: 7.
13 papers.
Sort:
By area:
- 2025Understanding the Repeat Curse in Large Language Models from a Feature Perspectivecited by 36
- 2024Repetition Neurons: How Do Language Models Produce Repetitions?cited by 22
- 2024Improving Open-Ended Text Generation via Adaptive Decodingcited by 21
- 2025Chronological Thinking in Full-Duplex Spoken Dialogue Language Modelscited by 13
- 2025Repetitions are not all alike: distinct mechanisms sustain repetition in language modelscited by 9
- 2026Context Tokens are Anchors: Understanding the Repetition Curse in dMLLMs from an Information Flow Perspectivecited by 6
- 2025Induction Head Toxicity Mechanistically Explains Repetition Curse in Large Language Modelscited by 3
- 2026Interrupting the Loop: Periodic Subject Changes Raise Judged Surprise and Connection in Base Language Modelscited by 2
- 2026Breaking the Likelihood Trap: Variance-Calibrated Modulation for Large Language Model Decodingcited by 1
- 2026CUSUM-Shaped Inference-Time Monitoring and Targeted Re-Decoding for Quantized Small Language Model Reasoningcited by 1
- 2026Calibrated e-CUSUM Decoding for Quantized Reasoning Models: Why Token Log-Probability Is the Wrong Observable for Decoding Monitorscited by 0
- 2026SonicSampler: Unified Tile-Aware Kernels for LLM Sampling and Speculative Verificationcited by 0
1 more
- 2026Uncovering Uncontrolled Repetition through Residual Stream Dynamics30 Sep 2026
- 2026Interrupting the Loop: Periodic Subject Changes Raise Judged Surprise and Connection in Base Language Models20 Aug 2026
- 2026CUSUM-Shaped Inference-Time Monitoring and Targeted Re-Decoding for Quantized Small Language Model Reasoning22 Jul 2026
- 2026Calibrated e-CUSUM Decoding for Quantized Reasoning Models: Why Token Log-Probability Is the Wrong Observable for Decoding Monitors13 Jul 2026
- 2026Breaking the Likelihood Trap: Variance-Calibrated Modulation for Large Language Model Decoding21 Jun 2026
- 2026SonicSampler: Unified Tile-Aware Kernels for LLM Sampling and Speculative Verification24 May 2026
- 2026Context Tokens are Anchors: Understanding the Repetition Curse in dMLLMs from an Information Flow Perspective28 Jan 2026
- 2025Chronological Thinking in Full-Duplex Spoken Dialogue Language Models2 Oct 2025
- 2025Induction Head Toxicity Mechanistically Explains Repetition Curse in Large Language Models17 May 2025
- 2025Understanding the Repeat Curse in Large Language Models from a Feature Perspective19 Apr 2025
- 2025Repetitions are not all alike: distinct mechanisms sustain repetition in language models1 Apr 2025
- 2024Repetition Neurons: How Do Language Models Produce Repetitions?17 Oct 2024
1 more
- 2024Improving Open-Ended Text Generation via Adaptive Decoding28 Feb 2024
- 2025Chronological Thinking in Full-Duplex Spoken Dialogue Language Modelscited by 13
- 2026CUSUM-Shaped Inference-Time Monitoring and Targeted Re-Decoding for Quantized Small Language Model Reasoningcited by 1
- 2026Calibrated e-CUSUM Decoding for Quantized Reasoning Models: Why Token Log-Probability Is the Wrong Observable for Decoding Monitorscited by 0
- 2026CUSUM-Shaped Inference-Time Monitoring and Targeted Re-Decoding for Quantized Small Language Model Reasoning22 Jul 2026
- 2026Calibrated e-CUSUM Decoding for Quantized Reasoning Models: Why Token Log-Probability Is the Wrong Observable for Decoding Monitors13 Jul 2026
- 2025Chronological Thinking in Full-Duplex Spoken Dialogue Language Models2 Oct 2025
- 2025Understanding the Repeat Curse in Large Language Models from a Feature Perspectivecited by 36
- 2024Repetition Neurons: How Do Language Models Produce Repetitions?cited by 22
- 2024Improving Open-Ended Text Generation via Adaptive Decodingcited by 21
- 2025Repetitions are not all alike: distinct mechanisms sustain repetition in language modelscited by 9
- 2025Induction Head Toxicity Mechanistically Explains Repetition Curse in Large Language Modelscited by 3
- 2026Interrupting the Loop: Periodic Subject Changes Raise Judged Surprise and Connection in Base Language Modelscited by 2
- 2026Breaking the Likelihood Trap: Variance-Calibrated Modulation for Large Language Model Decodingcited by 1
- 2026Uncovering Uncontrolled Repetition through Residual Stream Dynamicscited by 0
- 2026Uncovering Uncontrolled Repetition through Residual Stream Dynamics30 Sep 2026
- 2026Interrupting the Loop: Periodic Subject Changes Raise Judged Surprise and Connection in Base Language Models20 Aug 2026
- 2026Breaking the Likelihood Trap: Variance-Calibrated Modulation for Large Language Model Decoding21 Jun 2026
- 2025Induction Head Toxicity Mechanistically Explains Repetition Curse in Large Language Models17 May 2025
- 2025Understanding the Repeat Curse in Large Language Models from a Feature Perspective19 Apr 2025
- 2025Repetitions are not all alike: distinct mechanisms sustain repetition in language models1 Apr 2025
- 2024Repetition Neurons: How Do Language Models Produce Repetitions?17 Oct 2024
- 2024Improving Open-Ended Text Generation via Adaptive Decoding28 Feb 2024