mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Beyond Reproducibility: Token Probabilities Expose Large Language Model Nondeterminism

arXiv 2601.06118 ↗First posted 3 Jan 2026cs.AIcited by 3

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

The execution of Large Language Models (LLMs) has been shown to produce nondeterministic results when run on Graphics Processing Units (GPUs), even when they are configured to produce deterministic results. This is due to the finite precision effects of the arithmetic operations, which depend on the order in which they are executed. This order, in turn, depends on the processes that are running concurrently on the GPU. Previous studies have focused on the impact of nondeterminism on the text generated by the LLMs or on proposing mechanisms to achieve deterministic execution. This work takes a closer look at nondeterminism by analyzing the variations on the token probabilities, not on the generated text. Interestingly, all the models evaluated have similar results in both the trends and the actual values of the variations of the probabilities. In particular, the results show that the effects of nondeterminism are significant for token probabilities that are in the range of 0.1 to 0.9, while they are much smaller when the probabilities are close to 0 or 1. This has significant implications for our understanding of nondeterminism. The first is that nondeterminism will likely have a non-negligible impact on generated text when the temperature is not zero, as it introduces significant variations in the token probabilities except when they are close to 0 or 1. Secondly, it suggests that all models have similar non deterministic variations at the token probability level. Therefore, different variations in the performance of the generated text, for example, when measuring accuracy on a benchmark, seem to come from different token probabilities or response lengths. A third implication is that we may be able to estimate the impact of nondeterminism by running a single inference and analyzing the token level probabilities, instead of having to run the same inference many times.

Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 35 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 3 Jan 2026.

Builds on

16 of 35 references.

References · 16

  1. 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,199
  2. 2023GPT-4 Technical Reportcited by 18,132
  3. 2020Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understandingcited by 7,768
  4. 2019The Curious Case of Neural Text Degenerationcited by 2,881
  5. 2019Megatron-LM: Training Multi-Billion Parameter Language Models Using Model Parallelismcited by 1,829
  6. 2023FlexGen: High-Throughput Generative Inference of Large Language Models with a Single GPUcited by 567
  7. 2022FP8 Formats for Deep Learningcited by 187
  8. 2024Lessons from the Trenches on Reproducible Evaluation of Language Modelscited by 172
  9. 2024A Systematic Survey and Critical Review on Evaluating Large Language Models: Challenges, Limitations, and Recommendationscited by 84
  10. 2024Non-Determinism of "Deterministic" LLM Settingscited by 84
  11. 2024Large Language Model Inference Acceleration: A Comprehensive Hardware Perspectivecited by 36
  12. 2025Are You Getting What You Pay For? Auditing Model Substitution in LLM APIscited by 35
4 more
  1. 2024Towards Reproducible LLM Evaluation: Quantifying Uncertainty in LLM Benchmark Scorescited by 25
  2. 2024Impacts of floating-point non-associativity on reproducibility for HPC and deep learning applicationscited by 24
  3. 2021On the reproducibility of fully convolutional neural networks for modeling time-space evolving physical systemscited by 3
  4. 2023Generative Artificial Intelligence Reproducibility and Consensuscited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 3.

3 papers.