mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Before and After Temperature: A Distributional View of Creative LLM Generation

arXiv 2606.01451 ↗First posted 31 May 2026cs.CLcited by 0

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

  1. 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,192
  2. 2022Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Modelscited by 5,601
  3. 2019BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERTcited by 5,462
  4. 2019HellaSwag: Can a Machine Really Finish Your Sentence?cited by 4,018
  5. 2019The Curious Case of Neural Text Degenerationcited by 2,881
  6. 2023G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignmentcited by 2,205
  7. 2018Hierarchical Neural Story Generationcited by 1,182
  8. 2015A Diversity-Promoting Objective Function for Neural Conversation Modelscited by 1,068
  9. 2023Semantic Uncertainty: Linguistic Invariances for Uncertainty Estimation in Natural Language Generationcited by 795
  10. 2023SelfCheckGPT: Zero-Resource Black-Box Hallucination Detection for Generative Large Language Modelscited by 787
  11. 2021BARTScore: Evaluating Generated Text as Text Generationcited by 719
  12. 2020SummEval: Re-evaluating Summarization Evaluationcited by 666
8 more
  1. 2023Prometheus: Inducing Fine-grained Evaluation Capability in Language Modelscited by 558
  2. 2018Texygen: A Benchmarking Platform for Text Generation Modelscited by 484
  3. 2023GPTScore: Evaluate as You Desirecited by 357
  4. 2023Does Writing with Language Models Reduce Content Diversity?cited by 190
  5. 2023Art or Artifice? Large Language Models and the False Promise of Creativitycited by 168
  6. 2022Locally Typical Samplingcited by 108
  7. 2022Putting GPT-3's Creativity to the (Alternative Uses) Testcited by 62
  8. 2025Confidence, Not Perplexity: A Better Metric for the Creative Era of LLMscited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.