mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Structure-Conditional Minimum Bayes Risk Decoding

arXiv 2510.20700 ↗First posted 23 Oct 2025cs.CLcited by 2

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Minimum Bayes Risk (MBR) decoding has seen renewed interest as an alternative to traditional generation strategies. While MBR has proven effective in machine translation, where the variability of a language model's outcome space is naturally constrained, it may face challenges in more open-ended tasks such as dialogue or instruction-following. We hypothesise that in such settings, applying MBR with standard similarity-based utility functions may result in selecting responses that are broadly representative of the model's distribution, yet sub-optimal with respect to any particular grouping of generations that share an underlying latent structure. In this work, we introduce three lightweight adaptations to the utility function, designed to make MBR more sensitive to structural variability in the outcome space. To test our hypothesis, we curate a dataset capturing three representative types of latent structure: dialogue act, emotion, and response structure (e.g., a sentence, a paragraph, or a list). We further propose two metrics to evaluate the structural optimality of MBR. Our analysis demonstrates that common similarity-based utility functions fall short by these metrics. In contrast, our proposed adaptations considerably improve structural optimality. Finally, we evaluate our approaches on real-world instruction-following benchmarks, AlpacaEval and MT-Bench, and show that increased structural sensitivity improves generation quality by up to 13.7 percentage points in win rate.

Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 24 of its 41 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 23 Oct 2025.

Builds on

24 of 41 references.

References · 24

  1. 2019Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networkscited by 9,170
  2. 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,626
  3. 2019BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERTcited by 5,512
  4. 2020BLEURT: Learning Robust Metrics for Text Generationcited by 1,203
  5. 2023Large Language Models are not Fair Evaluatorscited by 1,085
  6. 2020COMET: A Neural Framework for MT Evaluationcited by 1,033
  7. 2017DailyDialog: A Manually Labelled Multi-turn Dialogue Datasetcited by 652
  8. 2024Prometheus 2: An Open Source Language Model Specialized in Evaluating Other Language Modelscited by 446
  9. 2023Evaluating Large Language Models at Evaluating Instruction Followingcited by 302
  10. 2024LLMs instead of Human Judges? A Large Scale Empirical Study across 20 NLP Evaluation Taskscited by 243
  11. 2024Large Language Models are Inconsistent and Biased Evaluatorscited by 153
  12. 2020Is MAP Decoding All You Need? The Inadequacy of the Mode in Neural Machine Translationcited by 138
12 more
  1. 2019On NMT Search Errors and Model Errors: Cat Got Your Tongue?cited by 114
  2. 2021High Quality Rather than High Model Probability: Minimum Bayes Risk Decoding with Neural Metricscited by 104
  3. 2020Trading Off Diversity and Quality in Natural Language Generationcited by 96
  4. 2021Sampling-Based Approximations to Minimum Bayes Risk Decoding for Neural Machine Translationcited by 65
  5. 2022Follow the Wisdom of the Crowd: Effective Text Generation via Minimum Bayes Risk Decodingcited by 54
  6. 2023What Comes Next? Evaluating Uncertainty in Neural Text Generators Against Human Production Variabilitycited by 51
  7. 2023Faster Minimum Bayes Risk Decoding with Confidence-based Pruningcited by 34
  8. 2023Direct Preference Optimization for Neural Machine Translation with Minimum Bayes Risk Decodingcited by 28
  9. 2022Model Criticism for Long-Form Text Generationcited by 21
  10. 2024Linear-time Minimum Bayes Risk Decoding with Reference Aggregationcited by 21
  11. 2024Better Instruction-Following Through Minimum Bayes Riskcited by 19
  12. 2024Variability Need Not Imply Error: The Case of Adequate but Semantically Distinct Responsescited by 2

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.

2 papers.