mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

The Truncation Blind Spot: How Decoding Strategies Systematically Exclude Human-Like Token Choices

arXiv 2603.18482 ↗First posted 19 Mar 2026cs.CL cs.LG stat.MLcited by 2

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

  1. 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,712
  2. 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,192
  3. 2023Mamba: Linear-Time Sequence Modeling with Selective State Spacescited by 4,616
  4. 2022OPT: Open Pre-trained Transformer Language Modelscited by 3,464
  5. 2023Qwen Technical Reportcited by 3,273
  6. 2023Mistral 7Bcited by 3,065
  7. 2016Pointer Sentinel Mixture Modelscited by 2,992
  8. 2019The Curious Case of Neural Text Degenerationcited by 2,881
  9. 2024Qwen2 Technical Reportcited by 2,076
  10. 2018Hierarchical Neural Story Generationcited by 1,182
  11. 2015Aligning Books and Movies: Towards Story-like Visual Explanations by Watching Movies and Reading Bookscited by 1,041
  12. 2023RWKV: Reinventing RNNs for the Transformer Eracited by 814
28 more
  1. 2023DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection using Probability Curvaturecited by 705
  2. 2023A Watermark for Large Language Modelscited by 667
  3. 2024DeepSeek LLM: Scaling Open-Source Language Models with Longtermismcited by 621
  4. 2023The Falcon Series of Open Language Modelscited by 526
  5. 2019Release Strategies and the Social Impacts of Language Modelscited by 505
  6. 2019GLTR: Statistical Detection and Visualization of Generated Textcited by 490
  7. 2023Paraphrasing evades detectors of AI-generated text, but retrieval is an effective defensecited by 401
  8. 2019Automatic Detection of Generated Text is Easiest when Humans are Fooledcited by 260
  9. 2022A Contrastive Framework for Neural Text Generationcited by 224
  10. 2020Automatic Detection of Machine Generated Text: A Critical Surveycited by 160
  11. 2024Turning Up the Heat: Min-p Sampling for Creative and Coherent LLM Outputscited by 148
  12. 2025Artificial Hivemind: The Open-Ended Homogeneity of Language Models (and Beyond)cited by 137
  13. 2023The Science of Detecting LLM-Generated Textscited by 126
  14. 2022Truncation Sampling as Language Model Desmoothingcited by 121
  15. 2022Why Does Surprisal From Larger Transformer-Based Language Models Provide a Poorer Fit to Human Reading Times?cited by 111
  16. 2022Locally Typical Samplingcited by 108
  17. 2022On Decoding Strategies for Neural Text Generatorscited by 89
  18. 2023Testing the Predictions of Surprisal Theory in 11 Languagescited by 75
  19. 2022Contrastive Search Is What You Need For Neural Text Generationcited by 58
  20. 2023Closing the Curious Case of Neural Text Degenerationcited by 30
  21. 2024Adaptive Contrastive Search: Uncertainty-Guided Decoding for Open-Ended Text Generationcited by 27
  22. 2024Decoding Decoded: Understanding Hyperparameter Effects in Open-Ended Text Generationcited by 26
  23. 2024Falcon2-11B Technical Reportcited by 11
  24. 2025GUARD: Glocal Uncertainty-Aware Robust Decoding for Effective and Efficient Open-Ended Text Generationcited by 10
  25. 2024Towards Better Open-Ended Text Generation: A Multicriteria Evaluation Frameworkcited by 9
  26. 2025Statistical Multicriteria Evaluation of LLM-Generated Textcited by 9
  27. 2025The Geometry of Creative Variability: How Credal Sets Expose Calibration Gaps in Language Modelscited by 4
  28. 2025How Sampling Affects the Detectability of Machine-written texts: A Comprehensive Studycited by 4

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.

2 papers.