Temperature Fragility and the Conditional Benefits of Truncation Sampling
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Large language models generate text by sampling each token from a predicted distribution, and a temperature parameter sets how far the draw strays from the most probable tokens. Truncation samplers such as top-p and min-p discard the least probable tokens before the draw, so that sampling at high temperature stays coherent. Their reported accuracy gains come from temperatures of 1.5 to 3, while the defaults of deployed systems cluster between 0.6 and 1.0. Whether they change accuracy at those defaults, and for which models, has not been measured. We test thirteen open-weight models on GSM8K and MMLU-Pro at temperatures 0.7, 1.0, and 1.3 in one controlled pipeline, ten of them under eight decoding configurations. Six of the thirteen models lose 17 to 38 accuracy points on MMLU-Pro between 0.7 and 1.3, and the other seven lose at most 10. The lost accuracy comes from generations that run to the token limit or never state an answer. These results suggest that truncation samplers improve accuracy primarily when higher temperatures substantially degrade model performance. Where accuracy remains stable across temperatures, none of the tested truncation samplers improves on plain temperature sampling.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 32 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 14 Sep 2026.
Builds on
16 of 32 references.
References · 16
- 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,715
- 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 10,109
- 2019The Curious Case of Neural Text Degenerationcited by 2,916
- 2024MMLU-Pro: A More Robust and Challenging Multi-Task Language Understanding Benchmarkcited by 1,848
- 2018Hierarchical Neural Story Generationcited by 1,193
- 2024Turning Up the Heat: Min-p Sampling for Creative and Coherent LLM Outputscited by 150
- 2022Truncation Sampling as Language Model Desmoothingcited by 123
- 2024The Good, The Bad, and The Greedy: Evaluation of LLMs Should Not Ignore Non-Determinismcited by 116
- 2024A Thorough Examination of Decoding Methods in the Era of LLMscited by 114
- 2025A Sober Look at Progress in Language Model Reasoning: Pitfalls and Paths to Reproducibilitycited by 93
- 2024Decoding Decoded: Understanding Hyperparameter Effects in Open-Ended Text Generationcited by 26
- 2025Control the Temperature: Selective Sampling for Diverse and High-Quality LLM Outputscited by 15
4 more
- 2025Min-p, Max Exaggeration: A Critical Analysis of Min-p Sampling in Language Modelscited by 10
- 2026Min-k Sampling: Decoupling Truncation from Temperature Scaling via Relative Logit Dynamicscited by 9
- 2025p-less Sampling: A Robust Hyperparameter-Free Approach for LLM Decodingcited by 5
- 2026What We Observe as LLM Behavior Can Be a Side-effect of Inference Backendcited by 2
Built on by
Not cited yet.