On the Efficacy of Sampling Adapters
Clara Meister, Tiago Pimentel, Luca Malagutti, Ethan Wilcox, Ryan Cotterell
Abstract
Sampling-based decoding strategies are widely employed for generating text from probabilistic models, yet standard ancestral sampling often results in text that is degenerate or incoherent. To alleviate this issue, various modifications to a model’s sampling distribution, such as top-p or top-k sampling, have been introduced and are now ubiquitously used in language generation systems. We propose a unified framework for understanding these techniques, which we term sampling adapters. Sampling adapters often lead to qualitatively better text, which raises the question: From a formal perspective, how are they changing the token-level distributions of language generation models? And why do these local changes lead to higher-quality text? We argue that the shift they enforce can be viewed as a trade-off between precision and recall: while the model loses its ability to produce certain strings, its precision rate on desirable text increases. While this trade-off is not reflected in standard metrics of distribution quality (such as perplexity), we find that several precision-emphasizing measures indeed indicate that sampling adapters can lead to probability distributions more aligned with the true distribution. Further, these measures correlate with higher sequence-level quality scores, specifically, Mauve.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Cited by top-tier papers5
- Improving Open-Ended Text Generation via Adaptive DecodingWenhong Zhu, Hongkun Hao, Zhiwei He, Yiming Ai et al.ICML 2024 · 21 citations
- Emo: Earth Mover Distance Optimization for Auto-Regressive Language ModelingSiyu Ren, Zhiyong Wu, Kenny Q. ZhuICLR 2024 · 9 citations
- Reembedding and Reweighting are Needed for Tail Item Sequential RecommendationZihao Li, Yakun Chen, Tong Zhang, Xianzhi WangWWW 2025 · 5 citations
- Sample Smart, Not Hard: Correctness-First Decoding for Better Reasoning in LLMsXueyan Li, Guinan Su, Mrinmaya Sachan, Jonas GeipingICLR 2026 · 5 citations
- A Probability-Quality Trade-off in Aligned Language Models and its Relation to Sampling AdaptorsNaaman Tan, Josef Valvoda, Tianyu Liu, Anej Svete et al.EMNLP 2024
Builds on14
- The Curious Case of Neural Text DegenerationAri Holtzman, Jan Buys, Li Du, Maxwell Forbes et al.ICLR 2020 · 4,112 citations
- Neural Text Generation With Unlikelihood TrainingSean Welleck, Ilia Kulikov, Stephen Roller, Emily Dinan et al.ICLR 2020 · 683 citations
- MAUVE: Measuring the Gap Between Neural Text and Human Text using Divergence FrontiersKrishna Pillutla, Swabha Swayamdipta, Rowan Zellers, John Thickstun et al.NeurIPS 2021 · 606 citations
- An empirical analysis of compute-optimal large language model trainingJordan Hoffmann, Sebastian Borgeaud, Arthur Mensch, Elena Buchatskaya et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 566 citations
- Text Generation by Learning from DemonstrationsRichard Yuanzhe Pang, He HeICLR 2021 · 88 citations
Related papers
- Mirostat: a Neural Text decoding Algorithm that directly controls perplexitySourya Basu, Govardana Sachitanandam Ramachandran, Nitish Shirish Keskar, Lav R. VarshneyICLR 2021 · 13 citations
- kNN-LM Does Not Improve Open-ended Text GenerationShufan Wang, Yixiao Song, Andrew Drozdov, Aparna Garimella et al.EMNLP 2023 · 3 citations
- Decoding Game: On Minimax Optimality of Heuristic Text Generation StrategiesSijin Chen, Omar Hagrass, Jason Matthew KlusowskiICLR 2025
- On the Usefulness of Embeddings, Clusters and Strings for Text Generation EvaluationTiago Pimentel, Clara Meister, Ryan CotterellICLR 2023
- Turning Up the Heat: Min-p Sampling for Creative and Coherent LLM OutputsNguyen Nhat Minh, Andrew Baker, Clement Neo, Allen G. Roush et al.ICLR 2025
