D-Models and E-Models: Diversity-Stability Trade-offs in the Sampling Behavior of Large Language Models
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
The predictive probability of the next token (P_token) in large language models (LLMs) is inextricably linked to the probability of relevance for the next piece of information, the purchase probability of the next product, and the execution probability of the next action-all of which fall under the scope of the task-level target distribution (P_task). While LLMs are known to generate samples that approximate real-world distributions, whether their fine-grained sampling probabilities faithfully align with task requirements remains an open question. Through controlled distribution-sampling simulations, we uncover a striking dichotomy in LLM behavior, distinguishing two model types: D-models (e.g. Qwen-2.5), whose P_token exhibits large step-to-step variability and poor alignment with P_task; and E-models (e.g. Mistral-Small), whose P_token is more stable and better aligned with P_task. We further evaluate these two model types in downstream tasks such as code generation and recommendation, revealing systematic trade-offs between diversity and stability that shape task outcomes. Finally, we analyze the internal properties of both model families to probe their underlying mechanisms. These findings offer foundational insights into the probabilistic sampling behavior of LLMs and provide practical guidance on when to favor D- versus E-models. For web-scale applications, including recommendation, search, and conversational agents, our results inform model selection and configuration to balance diversity with reliability under real-world uncertainty, providing a better level of interpretation.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 18 of its 32 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 25 Jan 2026.
Builds on
18 of 32 references.
References · 18
- 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,715
- 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,320
- 2024Gemma 2: Improving Open Language Models at a Practical Sizecited by 1,998
- 2025Qwen3 Embedding: Advancing Text Embedding and Reranking Through Foundation Modelscited by 1,261
- 2022Teaching Models to Express Their Uncertainty in Wordscited by 751
- 2020How Can We Know When Language Models Know? On the Calibration of Language Models for Question Answeringcited by 445
- 2025RLPR: Extrapolating RLVR to General Domains without Verifierscited by 85
- 2025Base Models Beat Aligned Models at Randomness and Creativitycited by 51
- 2024Cycles of Thought: Measuring LLM Confidence through Stable Explanationscited by 29
- 2022ThinkSum: Probabilistic reasoning over sets using large language modelscited by 23
- 2025Enough Coin Flips Can Make LLMs Act Bayesiancited by 22
- 2024Do LLMs Play Dice? Exploring Probability Distribution Sampling in Large Language Models for Behavioral Simulationcited by 14
6 more
- 2025CTRLS: Chain-of-Thought Reasoning via Latent State-Transitioncited by 14
- 2025Manipulating LLM Web Agents with Indirect Prompt Injection Attack via HTML Accessibility Treecited by 14
- 2024Fourier Head: Helping Large Language Models Learn Complex Probability Distributionscited by 10
- 2025Unveiling Confirmation Bias in Chain-of-Thought Reasoningcited by 10
- 2025B-score: Detecting biases in large language models using response historycited by 6
- 2025LLM-Driven Usefulness Judgment for Web Search Evaluationcited by 3
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.