Before and After Temperature: A Distributional View of Creative LLM Generation
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Reference-free evaluation of large language model (LLM) creativity relies on perplexity, entropy, and top-1 margin. We show that a much stronger signal lives one step earlier in the pipeline: in how sampling temperature reshapes the model's token distribution before the next token is drawn. On Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct generations of 500 open-ended creative prompts at T ∈ 0.3, 0.8, 1.5, a single per-token feature derived from this reshaping predicts the within-prompt creativity rank at Spearman ρ=0.918 against an averaged gpt-4o,/,gemini-2.5-pro judge (n=500) and ρ=0.870 against a three-rater human-majority ranking (n=150). Each of four standard reference-free baselines (self-perplexity, mean predictive entropy, top-1 margin, gzip compression ratio) tops out at |ρ|!≈!0.76 on both ground truths: a gap of +0.165 on averaged-LLM and +0.110 on human-majority, both far larger than the spread among the baselines themselves. The two ground-truth panels agree with each other at ρ=0.83, above the inter-human ceiling of ρ=0.77, so the comparison is not bottlenecked by judge noise. Mechanistically, the win comes from a sharp distributional signature of the incoherence regime: at T=1.5 the cumulative-mass width n95(q) inflates from ~!1 to ~!131 tokens and post-temperature mass leaks off the pre-temperature top-90% plausible set by about 13 percentage points. The per-token aggregates do not separate T=0.8 from T=0.3; discriminating the two coherent regimes is left to sequence-level features.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 29 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 31 May 2026.
Builds on
20 of 29 references.
References · 20
- 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,192
- 2022Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Modelscited by 5,601
- 2019BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERTcited by 5,462
- 2019HellaSwag: Can a Machine Really Finish Your Sentence?cited by 4,018
- 2019The Curious Case of Neural Text Degenerationcited by 2,881
- 2023G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignmentcited by 2,205
- 2018Hierarchical Neural Story Generationcited by 1,182
- 2015A Diversity-Promoting Objective Function for Neural Conversation Modelscited by 1,068
- 2023Semantic Uncertainty: Linguistic Invariances for Uncertainty Estimation in Natural Language Generationcited by 795
- 2023SelfCheckGPT: Zero-Resource Black-Box Hallucination Detection for Generative Large Language Modelscited by 787
- 2021BARTScore: Evaluating Generated Text as Text Generationcited by 719
- 2020SummEval: Re-evaluating Summarization Evaluationcited by 666
8 more
- 2023Prometheus: Inducing Fine-grained Evaluation Capability in Language Modelscited by 558
- 2018Texygen: A Benchmarking Platform for Text Generation Modelscited by 484
- 2023GPTScore: Evaluate as You Desirecited by 357
- 2023Does Writing with Language Models Reduce Content Diversity?cited by 190
- 2023Art or Artifice? Large Language Models and the False Promise of Creativitycited by 168
- 2022Locally Typical Samplingcited by 108
- 2022Putting GPT-3's Creativity to the (Alternative Uses) Testcited by 62
- 2025Confidence, Not Perplexity: A Better Metric for the Creative Era of LLMscited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.