That issettoaconstant see [22, Appendix MAUVE-Lattice.

As major progress is made in open-ended text generation, measuring how close machine-generated text is to human language remains a critical open problem. We introduce Mauve, a comparison measure for open-ended text generation, which directly compares the learnt distribution from a text generation model to the distribution of human-written text using divergence frontiers.

Open-ended text generation faces a critical challenge: balancing coherence with diversity in LLM outputs. While contrastive search-based decoding strategies have emerged to address this trade-off, their practical utility is often limited by hyperparameter dependence and high computational costs. We introduce GUARD, a self-adaptive decoding method that effectively balances these competing objectives through a novel "Glocal" uncertainty-driven framework. GUARD combines global entropy estimates with local entropy deviations to integrate both long-term and short-term uncertainty signals. We demonstrate that our proposed global entropy formulation effectively mitigates abrupt variations in uncertainty, such as sudden overconfidence or high entropy spikes, and provides theoretical guarantees of unbiasedness and consistency. To reduce computational overhead, we incorporate a simple yet effective token-count-based penalty into GUARD. Experimental results demonstrate that GUARD achieves a good balance between text diversity and coherence, while exhibiting substantial improvements in generation speed. In a more nuanced comparison study across different dimensions of text quality, both human and LLM evaluators validated its remarkable performance. Our code is available at https://github.com/YecanLee/GUARD.

Decoding strategies for generative large language models (LLMs) are a critical but often underexplored aspect of text generation tasks. Guided by specific hyperparameters, these strategies aim to transform the raw probability distributions produced by language models into coherent, fluent text. In this study, we undertake a large-scale empirical assessment of a range of decoding methods, open-source LLMs, textual domains, and evaluation protocols to determine how hyperparameter choices shape the outputs. Our experiments include both factual (e.g., news) and creative (e.g., fiction) domains, and incorporate a broad suite of automatic evaluation metrics alongside human judgments. Through extensive sensitivity analyses, we distill practical recommendations for selecting and tuning hyperparameters, noting that optimal configurations vary across models and tasks. By synthesizing these insights, this study provides actionable guidance for refining decoding strategies, enabling researchers and practitioners to achieve higher-quality, more reliable, and context-appropriate text generation outcomes.

As major progress is made in open-ended text generation, measuring how close machine-generated text is to human language remains a critical open problem. We introduce Mauve, a comparison measure for open-ended text generation, which directly compares the learnt distribution from a text generation model to the distribution of human-written text using divergence frontiers. Through an extensive empirical study on three open-ended generation tasks, we find that Mauve identifies known properties of generated text, scales naturally with model size, and correlates with human judgments, with fewer restrictions than existing distributional evaluation metrics.

Decoding from the output distributions of large language models to produce high-quality text is a complex challenge in language modeling. Various approaches, such as beam search, sampling with temperature, $k-$sampling, nucleus $p-$sampling, typical decoding, contrastive decoding, and contrastive search, have been proposed to address this problem, aiming to improve coherence, diversity, as well as resemblance to human-generated text. In this study, we introduce adaptive contrastive search, a novel decoding strategy extending contrastive search by incorporating an adaptive degeneration penalty, guided by the estimated uncertainty of the model at each generation step. This strategy is designed to enhance both the creativity and diversity of the language modeling process while at the same time producing coherent and high-quality generated text output. Our findings indicate performance enhancement in both aspects, across different model architectures and datasets, underscoring the effectiveness of our method in text generation tasks. Our code base, datasets, and models are publicly available.

The modern autoregressive Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved outstanding performance on NLP benchmarks, and they are deployed in the real world. However, they still suffer from limitations of the autoregressive training paradigm. For example, autoregressive token generation is notably slow and can be prone to \textit{exposure bias}. The diffusion-based language models were proposed as an alternative to autoregressive generation to address some of these limitations. We evaluate the recently proposed Score Entropy Discrete Diffusion (SEDD) approach and show it is a promising alternative to autoregressive generation but it has some short-comings too. We empirically demonstrate the advantages and challenges of SEDD, and observe that SEDD generally matches autoregressive models in perplexity and on benchmarks such as HellaSwag, Arc or WinoGrande. Additionally, we show that in terms of inference latency, SEDD can be up to 4.5$\times$ more efficient than GPT-2. While SEDD allows conditioning on tokens at abitrary positions, SEDD appears slightly weaker than GPT-2 for conditional generation given short prompts. Finally, we reproduced the main results from the original SEDD paper.

Large language models (LLMs) have emerged as a widely-used tool for information seeking, but their generated outputs are prone to hallucination. In this work, our aim is to allow LLMs to generate text with citations, improving their factual correctness and verifiability. Existing work mainly relies on commercial search engines and human evaluation, making it challenging to reproduce and compare different modeling approaches. We propose ALCE, the first benchmark for Automatic LLMs' Citation Evaluation. ALCE collects a diverse set of questions and retrieval corpora and requires building end-to-end systems to retrieve supporting evidence and generate answers with citations. We develop automatic metrics along three dimensions -- fluency, correctness, and citation quality -- and demonstrate their strong correlation with human judgements. Our experiments with state-of-the-art LLMs and novel prompting strategies show that current systems have considerable room for improvement -- For example, on the ELI5 dataset, even the best models lack complete citation support 50% of the time. Our analyses further highlight promising future directions, including developing better retrievers, advancing long-context LLMs, and improving the ability to synthesize information from multiple sources.