Failure to Mix: Large language models struggle to answer according to desired probability distributions
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Scientific idea generation and selection requires exploration following a target probability distribution. In contrast, current AI benchmarks have objectively correct answers, and training large language models (LLMs) via reinforcement learning against these benchmarks discourages probabilistic exploration. Here, we conducted systematic experiments requesting LLMs to produce outputs following simple probabilistic distributions, and found that all modern LLMs tested grossly fail to follow the distributions. For example, requesting a binary output of "1" 49% of the time produces an answer of "0" nearly 100% of the time. This step function-like behavior of near-exclusively generating the output with marginally highest probability even overrules even strong in-built LLM biases.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 18 Nov 2025.
Builds on
0 of 0 references.
No references here yet.
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026The Illusion of Stochasticity in LLMs
- 2024Learning From Failure: Integrating Negative Examples when Fine-tuning Large Language Models as Agents
- 2025Do Large Language Models Know What They Are Capable Of?
- 2026Reinforcement Inference: Leveraging Uncertainty for Self-Correcting Language Model Reasoning
- 2025Reasoning Under Uncertainty: Exploring Probabilistic Reasoning Capabilities of LLMs
- 2024Can large language models explore in-context?
- 2026Beyond Repeated Sampling: Learning Search Policies for LLM Reasoning
- 2026Scalable Power Sampling: Unlocking Efficient, Training-Free Reasoning for LLMs via Distribution Sharpening