mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

The Optimal Decoder is Tilted Temperature

arXiv 2610.15058 ↗First posted 10 Oct 2026cs.LGcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Larger sample budgets benefit from higher sampling temperatures in LLMs, but what temperature tuning optimizes and why it works remain poorly understood. We seek to answer these questions: we pose decoding as pass@k maximization subject to two constraints that encode critical decoding failure modes: an entropy floor preventing diversity collapse, and a cross-entropy ceiling preventing implausibility. We prove that this maximization takes the form of a single closed-form conditional sampling rule, the tilted temperature q^star propto bigl(p eη Vbigr)1/T. Here, the tilt comes from a verifier potential V that quantifies how likely a partial generation is to eventually pass. Ordinary temperature sampling, verifier-greedy decoding, and reward-tilted policies represent special cases. We further show that, under a natural rule for scaling the diversity budget with sample size k, the resulting optimal temperature increases with k, turning empirical choice into a theorem. The optimum still needs the unknown verifier potential, which we estimate using two design approaches. In the online setting, our J-EOS algorithm jointly tracks the two constraint multipliers and learns the verifier potential from binary pass/ fail feedback alone. In the offline setting, we show that when the model is calibrated, its log-probability tracks correctness up to an affine map. Under this condition, the tilt collapses into the exponent and the optimum reduces to ordinary temperature sampling. Calibrated Temperature Decoding (CTD) then fits one scalar offline and samples with zero additional inference-time overhead relative to temperature sampling. Building on these decision rules, we design a practical decoding algorithm for code generation and evaluate it alongside CTD on benchmarks including HumanEval and MBPP, showing improvements over standard and adaptive decoding baselines.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 21 of its 31 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 10 Oct 2026.

Builds on

21 of 31 references.

References · 21

  1. 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 10,109
  2. 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,320
  3. 2023Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Modelcited by 8,065
  4. 2022Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Modelscited by 5,708
  5. 2017On Calibration of Modern Neural Networkscited by 4,960
  6. 2023Let's Verify Step by Stepcited by 3,789
  7. 2021Program Synthesis with Large Language Modelscited by 3,637
  8. 2019The Curious Case of Neural Text Degenerationcited by 2,916
  9. 2024Scaling LLM Test-Time Compute Optimally can be More Effective than Scaling Model Parameterscited by 1,986
  10. 2022Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Knowcited by 1,856
  11. 2021WebGPT: Browser-assisted question-answering with human feedbackcited by 1,745
  12. 2024Large Language Monkeys: Scaling Inference Compute with Repeated Samplingcited by 991
9 more
  1. 2018Reinforcement Learning and Control as Probabilistic Inference: Tutorial and Reviewcited by 482
  2. 2020Calibration of Pre-trained Transformerscited by 315
  3. 2022RL with KL penalties is better viewed as Bayesian inferencecited by 135
  4. 2022Truncation Sampling as Language Model Desmoothingcited by 123
  5. 2022Locally Typical Samplingcited by 111
  6. 2024ARGS: Alignment as Reward-Guided Searchcited by 103
  7. 2023Hot or Cold? Adaptive Temperature Sampling for Code Generation with Large Language Modelscited by 38
  8. 2025Uncertainty-Guided Chain-of-Thought for Code Generation with LLMscited by 32
  9. 2025AdaDec: A Uncertainty-Guided Lookahead Decoding Framework for LLM-Based Code Generationcited by 3

Built on by

Not cited yet.