mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Learning to vary: Teaching LMs to reproduce human linguistic variability in next-word prediction

arXiv 2509.17794 ↗First posted 22 Sep 2025cs.CLcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Natural language generation (NLG) tasks are often subject to inherent variability; e.g. predicting the next word given a context has multiple valid responses, evident when asking multiple humans to complete the task. While having language models (LMs) that are aligned pluralistically, so that they are able to reproduce well the inherent diversity in perspectives of an entire population of interest is clearly beneficial, Ilia and Aziz (2024) show that LMs do not reproduce this type of linguistic variability well. They speculate this inability might stem from the lack of consistent training of LMs with data reflecting this type of inherent variability. As such, we investigate whether training LMs on multiple plausible word continuations per context can improve their ability to reproduce human linguistic variability for next-word prediction. We employ fine-tuning techniques for pre-trained and instruction-tuned models; and demonstrate their potential when fine-tuning GPT-2 and Mistral-7B-IT, using Provo Corpus. Our evaluation, which measures divergence among empirically estimated human and model next-word distributions across contexts before and after fine-tuning, shows that our multi-label fine-tuning improves the LMs' ability to reproduce linguistic variability; both for contexts that admit higher and lower variability.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 22 of its 49 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 22 Sep 2025.

Builds on

22 of 49 references.

References · 22

  1. 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 60,361
  2. 2014Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimizationcited by 37,240
  3. 2023QLoRA: Efficient Finetuning of Quantized LLMscited by 3,418
  4. 2019Human uncertainty makes classification more robustcited by 235
  5. 2020What Can We Learn from Collective Human Opinions on Natural Language Inference Data?cited by 153
  6. 2020Evaluating the Evaluation of Diversity in Natural Language Generationcited by 129
  7. 2022Stop Measuring Calibration When Humans Disagreecited by 71
  8. 2023Uncertainty in Natural Language Generation: From Theory to Applicationscited by 61
  9. 2024Detection and Measurement of Syntactic Templates in Generated Textcited by 44
  10. 2024VariErr NLI: Separating Annotation Error from Human Label Variationcited by 42
  11. 2023You Are What You Annotate: Towards Better Models through Annotator Representationscited by 40
  12. 2024CrisisSense-LLM: Instruction Fine-Tuned Large Language Model for Multi-label Social Media Text Classification in Disaster Informaticscited by 25
10 more
  1. 2021Did they answer? Subjective acts and intents in conversational discoursecited by 22
  2. 2021Multi-label Iterated Learning for Image Classification with Label Ambiguitycited by 19
  3. 2025Large Language Models Do Multi-Label Classification Differentlycited by 13
  4. 2018Joint Binary Neural Network for Multi-label Learning with Applications to Emotion Classificationcited by 12
  5. 2024Beyond the Binary: Capturing Diverse Preferences With Reward Regularizationcited by 11
  6. 2025Training and Evaluating with Human Label Variation: An Empirical Studycited by 8
  7. 2024DALLMi: Domain Adaption for LLM-based Multi-label Classifiercited by 7
  8. 2024Predict the Next Word: Humans exhibit uncertainty in this task and language models _____cited by 4
  9. 2025Perspectives in Play: A Multi-Perspective Approach for More Inclusive NLP Systemscited by 4
  10. 2025Embracing Diversity: A Multi-Perspective Approach with Soft Labelscited by 3

Built on by

Not cited yet.