The Truncation Blind Spot: How Decoding Strategies Systematically Exclude Human-Like Token Choices
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Why does machine-generated text remain detectable? We investigate a mechanistic explanation at the decoding stage: standard strategies such as top-k and nucleus sampling restrict generation to high-probability tokens, while human writers routinely choose contextually appropriate words from deeper in the model's probability distribution. Truncation makes a measurable share of these choices unreachable; we call this the truncation blind spot. Across five open models and three domains, 8--18% of human-selected tokens fall outside common truncation boundaries. Linguistic analysis further reveals disproportionate exclusion of content-word tokens. In a benchmark comprising 1.8 million machine generations, classifiers using only predictability and lexical diversity achieve mean AUC-ROC near 0.97, with substantial variation across decoding settings and strong transfer across generators. Probability-floor samplers substantially narrow the blind spot, demonstrating that the choice of truncation criterion matters for retaining human-used tokens. Together, these findings characterize a source of human--machine distributional mismatch and motivate decoding methods that preserve contextually appropriate low-probability choices while maintaining generation quality. Code and data are available at https://github.com/EstebanGarces/humanvsmachine.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 40 of its 77 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 19 Mar 2026.
Builds on
40 of 77 references.
References · 40
- 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,712
- 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,192
- 2023Mamba: Linear-Time Sequence Modeling with Selective State Spacescited by 4,616
- 2022OPT: Open Pre-trained Transformer Language Modelscited by 3,464
- 2023Qwen Technical Reportcited by 3,273
- 2023Mistral 7Bcited by 3,065
- 2016Pointer Sentinel Mixture Modelscited by 2,992
- 2019The Curious Case of Neural Text Degenerationcited by 2,881
- 2024Qwen2 Technical Reportcited by 2,076
- 2018Hierarchical Neural Story Generationcited by 1,182
- 2015Aligning Books and Movies: Towards Story-like Visual Explanations by Watching Movies and Reading Bookscited by 1,041
- 2023RWKV: Reinventing RNNs for the Transformer Eracited by 814
28 more
- 2023DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection using Probability Curvaturecited by 705
- 2023A Watermark for Large Language Modelscited by 667
- 2024DeepSeek LLM: Scaling Open-Source Language Models with Longtermismcited by 621
- 2023The Falcon Series of Open Language Modelscited by 526
- 2019Release Strategies and the Social Impacts of Language Modelscited by 505
- 2019GLTR: Statistical Detection and Visualization of Generated Textcited by 490
- 2023Paraphrasing evades detectors of AI-generated text, but retrieval is an effective defensecited by 401
- 2019Automatic Detection of Generated Text is Easiest when Humans are Fooledcited by 260
- 2022A Contrastive Framework for Neural Text Generationcited by 224
- 2020Automatic Detection of Machine Generated Text: A Critical Surveycited by 160
- 2024Turning Up the Heat: Min-p Sampling for Creative and Coherent LLM Outputscited by 148
- 2025Artificial Hivemind: The Open-Ended Homogeneity of Language Models (and Beyond)cited by 137
- 2023The Science of Detecting LLM-Generated Textscited by 126
- 2022Truncation Sampling as Language Model Desmoothingcited by 121
- 2022Why Does Surprisal From Larger Transformer-Based Language Models Provide a Poorer Fit to Human Reading Times?cited by 111
- 2022Locally Typical Samplingcited by 108
- 2022On Decoding Strategies for Neural Text Generatorscited by 89
- 2023Testing the Predictions of Surprisal Theory in 11 Languagescited by 75
- 2022Contrastive Search Is What You Need For Neural Text Generationcited by 58
- 2023Closing the Curious Case of Neural Text Degenerationcited by 30
- 2024Adaptive Contrastive Search: Uncertainty-Guided Decoding for Open-Ended Text Generationcited by 27
- 2024Decoding Decoded: Understanding Hyperparameter Effects in Open-Ended Text Generationcited by 26
- 2024Falcon2-11B Technical Reportcited by 11
- 2025GUARD: Glocal Uncertainty-Aware Robust Decoding for Effective and Efficient Open-Ended Text Generationcited by 10
- 2024Towards Better Open-Ended Text Generation: A Multicriteria Evaluation Frameworkcited by 9
- 2025Statistical Multicriteria Evaluation of LLM-Generated Textcited by 9
- 2025The Geometry of Creative Variability: How Credal Sets Expose Calibration Gaps in Language Modelscited by 4
- 2025How Sampling Affects the Detectability of Machine-written texts: A Comprehensive Studycited by 4
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.
2 papers.