Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 28 references

Controlled LLM Decoding via Discrete Auto-regressive Biasing

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Controlled LLM decoding can stay entirely in the discrete token domain: DAB yields better constraint satisfaction at comparable fluency and about twice the speed.

desk verdict Useful empirical decoder with a Gibbs-sampling story that doesn't check out; the heuristic works but the theory needs a rewrite. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.03685 v1 pith:GVOT7B6J submitted 2025-02-06 cs.CL cs.LGstat.ML

Patrick Pynadath , Ruqi Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.LGstat.ML
keywords controlledtextgenerationenergy-baseddecodingdiscreteLangevinproposalGibbssamplingauto-regressivebiasingconstraintsatisfactionsentimentcontroltoxicityavoidance
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Energy-based controlled decoding steers LLMs by sampling from a distribution defined by a weighted sum of fluency and constraint terms, but the resulting text often trades one for the other. This paper argues the trade-off is caused by sampling in continuous logit or embedding space and then projecting back to tokens. It proposes Discrete Auto-regressive Biasing (DAB), which instead defines a joint distribution over the response sequence and an auxiliary bias sequence of tokens, and samples it by alternating gradient-based discrete MCMC for the bias with biased auto-regressive generation for the response. The paper reports that DAB improves constraint satisfaction on sentiment control, detoxification, and keyword-guided generation while keeping fluency comparable or better, at roughly twice the decoding speed of the strongest continuous baseline. The central claim is that staying in the discrete token domain is both better and cheaper than continuous relaxation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the joint distribution over response $Y$ and bias $B$ (Eq. 5) together with a Gibbs-style alternation. To sample the bias conditional, DAB uses the Discrete Langevin Proposal (DLP), a gradient-informed categorical proposal over the vocabulary that favors tokens increasing the external constraint $f$; one step initialized at the current response replaces each token in parallel. To sample the response conditional, it maps the sampled bias token at each position to a bias vector using pairwise embedding distances (Eq. 8) and adds this, weighted and norm-matched, to the language model's next-token logits before taking the argmax (Eq. 10). The key computational point is that the gradient for the bias step is taken directly with respect to the one-hot token sequence, so no backpropagation through auto-regressive generation is needed.

What would settle it

Run DAB on a short-sequence, small-vocabulary task where the exact conditionals in Eq. 5 can be enumerated, and compare the empirical distribution of returned responses with the true joint distribution. If the empirical distribution does not approach the target as the number of alternating steps grows, the one-step DLP approximation is not a valid Gibbs sampler. A cheaper check: vary the number of DLP steps per bias update and see whether constraint satisfaction and fluency change materially; if they do, the single-step choice is doing the work.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that controlled generation is better solved as discrete sampling over tokens than as continuous Langevin dynamics over logits or embeddings. Starting from the observation that fluency is naturally produced by auto-regressive decoding and constraint satisfaction is naturally found by gradient-guided search, DAB defines the target as $P(Y,B|X) \propto P_{\mathrm{LM}}(Y|X,B) \exp(f(B|X))$, where $B$ is a sequence of 'bias tokens'. Sampling alternates: a single Discrete Langevin Proposal step initialized at the current response approximately draws $B$ from its conditional given $Y$, and the response $Y$ is then redrawn by biased auto-regressive generation that penalizes each vocabulary token by its embedding distance to the sampled bias token. This keeps the whole procedure in the discrete token domain, avoids backpropagating through the language model, and lets the algorithm return the best constraint-satisfying sample. The paper argues this discrete formulation explains both the improved fluency-control balance and the roughly $2\times$ speedup over BOLT.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a single Discrete Langevin Proposal step, initialized at the current response, faithfully samples the conditional distribution of bias tokens given the response, and that the argmax used to redraw the response faithfully samples its conditional; if either approximation fails, DAB is no longer sampling the joint distribution it claims to target.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • External constraints can be imposed at decoding time without fine-tuning or continuous relaxation; the auxiliary bias sequence carries the constraint signal while the base language model supplies fluency.
  • Because gradient computation avoids backpropagating through the auto-regressive model, DAB produces more than twice the tokens per second of BOLT, making controlled decoding more practical for interactive systems.
  • Discrete proposals keep the exploration stable: average token changes per sampling step stay roughly constant and perplexity does not diverge, so early stopping is not required.
  • On sentiment control, toxicity avoidance, and keyword-guided generation, DAB reports the highest constraint-satisfaction scores among the evaluated energy-based methods with fluency on par with the best baseline.
  • The framework extends to any differentiable external constraint, since the same DLP sampler only needs gradients of $f$ with respect to the token sequence.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the paper's diagnosis is right, other continuous decoding-time controllers should show the same instability; replacing their sampling step with a token-space proposal while keeping the rest fixed is a direct test of that diagnosis.
  • The one-step DLP approximation is the part most likely to be a heuristic in disguise. Comparing one DLP step against a long-run DLP would separate the Gibbs-sampler theory from the controlled-search practice.
  • The algorithm is agnostic to the constraint function, so multi-constraint or compositional control can be attempted by summing constraint gradients; the paper says this setting is unexplored.
  • Because the bias vector is built from any embedding metric, the same biasing recipe could steer other auto-regressive discrete generators beyond text, such as code or structured sequences.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Discrete Auto-regressive Biasing (DAB), a decoding-time controlled text generation algorithm. The method defines a joint distribution over a response sequence Y and an auxiliary bias sequence B, P(Y,B|X) ∝ P_LM(Y|X,B) exp(f(B|X)), and proposes to sample from it by alternating between a discrete Langevin proposal step for B given Y and a biased autoregressive argmax step for Y given B. Experiments on sentiment control, language detoxification, and keyword-guided generation report improved constraint satisfaction with comparable or better fluency and roughly 2x decoding speed over BOLT. The paper also provides ablations, pseudo-code, and a public code repository.

Significance. The empirical protocol is solid: three tasks, multiple baselines, error bars, ablations, and a code release. If the empirical gains hold, DAB is a useful decoding-time heuristic with a favorable efficiency profile. The claimed theoretical contribution—that the alternating procedure is a Langevin-within-Gibbs sampler for the joint distribution in Eq. (5)—is, however, not supported by the analysis. The conditional updates are not valid draws from the stated conditionals, and the derivation of the discrete proposal contains a mathematical error. The paper's value currently rests on the empirical results, which may stand after the theoretical framing is corrected or softened.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.1, 'Marginal Distribution P(Y|X)'] The displayed marginal distribution is incorrect. From Eq. (5), the joint distribution is proportional to P_LM(Y|X,B) exp(f(B|X)) with a single normalization constant Z = sum_{Y,B} P_LM(Y|X,B) exp(f(B|X)). The marginal over Y is therefore (1/Z) sum_B P_LM(Y|X,B) exp(f(B|X)). The paper instead writes sum_B P(Y|X,B) exp(f(B|X))/Z_B, treating each B as having its own normalizer Z_B. This is not the marginal of the joint distribution defined in Eq. (5) and indicates a confusion about the target distribution's normalization.
  2. [Section 4.2, 'Sampling from P(B|X,Y)'] The proposed B-update is not a valid Gibbs step. The conditional P(B|X,Y) ∝ P_LM(Y|X,B) exp(f(B|X)), but the algorithm replaces P_LM(Y|X,B) with the heuristic that B is close to Y, initializes B=Y, and runs one step of the proposal in Eq. (7) targeting exp(f(B|X)). Eq. (7) is an uncorrected proposal: in Zhang et al. (2022) the DLP is used inside a Metropolis-Hastings acceptance step to guarantee invariance, and Eq. (7) alone does not define a reversible transition with stationary distribution exp(f(B|X)). Moreover, a single step of any Markov chain starting from Y is not a sample from the conditional distribution. Thus the algorithm does not demonstrably sample from P(B|X,Y).
  3. [Section 4.2, 'Sampling from P(Y|X,B)'] The Y-update is a deterministic argmax in Eq. (10), not a draw from P(Y|X,B). The paper never defines P_LM(Y|X,B) as a conditional distribution of the base model because B is not part of the LM's context; the biased autoregressive generation is a heuristic modification of the logits using embedding distances. Consequently, the alternating procedure is not a Gibbs sampler for the joint distribution in Eq. (5). The theoretical claim in the abstract and Section 4.2 that DAB 'samples from this joint distribution' is therefore unsupported. The empirical results can stand as a heuristic, but the sampling claim needs either a proof or an explicitly softened presentation.
  4. [Appendix A / Eq. (7)] The derivation of Eq. (7) from the globally balanced DLP is incorrect. In the globally balanced proposal, the gradient term is ∇f(B)_i · (Onehot_j - b_i), which is a vector difference giving grad_j - grad_i for j≠i. The paper replaces this with (1 - b_i_j), which is a scalar hamming-distance indicator, yielding grad_j (up to temperature). These are not equivalent, so Eq. (7) is not the globally balanced DLP from Zhang et al. (2022). The algorithm may still be a reasonable heuristic, but the claimed connection to discrete Langevin dynamics is not established.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 2 caption] The word 'acheives' should be spelled 'achieves'.
  2. [Section 3, Eq. (2)] The energy E(Y) is written with λ1 log P_LM(Y|X) + λ2 f(Y|X), but the conditioning on X in f is inconsistent; later f(B|X) and f(Y) are used interchangeably, which should be clarified.
  3. [Section 4.2, Eq. (8)] The notation M bi is ambiguous; use M[bi] to denote the embedding of token bi.
  4. [Appendix D.4] The text says GPT-4o generates 30 sentences per keyword, but the next paragraph refers to 120 reference sentences; specify whether this is 30 sentences times 4 keywords or another count.
  5. [Appendix B, Algorithm 1] The pseudo-code initializes fmin to -∞ and tracks a best generation, but the condition under which Ybest is updated is not shown; adding this condition would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The theoretical wrapper is self-definitional: Eq. 5's Y-conditional is operationalized only as the biased argmax in Eq. 10, so 'sampling from the joint' restates the algorithm's own ingredients; external benchmarks keep the empirical claim independent.

  1. self definitional [Section 4.1 Eq. (5); Section 4.2 Eq. (10); Algorithm 1 line 6]
    "First, we define the joint distribution over Y, B conditioned on the prompt X: P (Y, B|X) ∝ P LM (Y |X, B) exp(f (B|X)). (5) ... Our goal is to sample from P (Y |X, B) using biased auto-regressive generation ... yi = arg max j∈|V | ( ˜yi,j − wi · ri · ˜bi,j ). (10)"

    Eq. (5) is presented as the target from which DAB samples, and the paper states that the conditional P(Y|X,B) is P_LM(Y|X,B). But P_LM(Y|X,B) is never defined as an actual conditional of the base model, since B is not part of the LM context. The only operational procedure called 'sampling from P(Y|X,B)' is the deterministic biased argmax in Eq. (10), used in Algorithm 1 line 6. Likewise, 'sampling from P(B|X,Y)' is implemented as a single uncorrected DLP proposal initialized at Y, rather than a draw from the conditional. Thus the alleged Gibbs sampler does not independently target Eq.

full rationale

The empirical core of the paper is not circular: DAB is compared against MuCOLA, COLD, BOLT, and LM-Steer using external control metrics such as separately trained sentiment classifiers, the Perspective API, and GPT-4o-reference BertScore, so the main claims of improved constraint satisfaction with comparable fluency do not reduce to a fit of the reported quantities. The self-citations to Zhang et al. (2022) and Pynadath et al. (2024) introduce the DLP proposal used in Eq. (7), but DLP is a published, independently developed sampler, so those self-citations are not by themselves load-bearing. The circularity is in the theoretical framing: Eq. (5) defines a joint distribution whose Y-conditional is declared to be P_LM(Y|X,B), yet that conditional is never given an independent definition, and the algorithm's only operational 'sampling' from it is the biased argmax in Eq. (10). Similarly, the B-conditional is replaced by a single uncorrected DLP step initialized at Y. Consequently, the claim to 'sample from this joint distribution' is a definitional reflection of the algorithm's own two ingredients rather than a derived MCMC result. This is a partial circularity of the theoretical wrapper, not of the empirical evaluation; if the MCMC justification were removed, the method could still stand as a heuristic, which is why the score is 4 rather than higher.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central contribution rests on a newly defined joint distribution and several heuristic approximations. The target distribution itself is a modeling choice (not an external benchmark), and the algorithm's validity depends on unproven assumptions about the conditional distributions. The empirical results, however, are measured against external baselines.

free parameters (4)
  • Proposal temperature tau = 0.1
    Controls sharpness of the DLP proposal in Eq. 7; set to 0.1 for all tasks (Table 4).
  • Bias weight base value w = 1.05 (sentiment, detox), 1.4 (topic)
    Scales the bias vector in Eq. 10; tuned per task with a linear decay schedule.
  • Top-k for DLP proposal = 250
    Restricts the DLP proposal vocabulary to the top-k tokens from the base LM; tuned in Appendix C.
  • Number of sampling steps s = 20 (sentiment, detox), 200 (topic)
    Chosen to roughly match BOLT's total time; tuned per task (Table 4).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The joint distribution P(Y,B|X) ∝ P_LM(Y|X,B) exp(f(B|X)) is an appropriate target for controlled generation.
    Section 4.1 defines this target without deriving it from first principles; it encodes the desired fluency-control tradeoff by construction.
  • domain assumption P_LM(Y|X,B) in the joint distribution is well-defined and comparable to the biased auto-regressive generation of Eq. 10.
    Eq. 5 uses P_LM(Y|X,B), but the base LM is never actually conditioned on B as input tokens; the biased logit modification in Eq. 10 is treated as equivalent to conditioning, which is an unproven modeling choice.
  • ad hoc to paper One DLP step with B initialized at Y approximates sampling from P(B|X,Y).
    Section 4.2 states 'this property is naturally satisfied when B is close to Y' and replaces the intractable term by a single MCMC step; no error or convergence analysis is given.
  • domain assumption Static embedding L2 distances in Eq. 8 provide a semantically meaningful steering signal.
    The paper assumes that penalizing tokens by distance to the bias token in embedding space guides generation toward constraint satisfaction, relying on static embeddings capturing semantic meaning.
  • standard math The Discrete Langevin Proposal from Zhang et al. (2022) is a valid gradient-based discrete sampler.
    The proposal in Eq. 7 is cited from prior work and used as a building block; the paper does not re-derive it.
invented entities (1)
  • Auxiliary bias sequence B
    purpose: Latent sequence of discrete tokens used to steer auto-regressive generation toward constraint satisfaction.
    B is a modeling construct introduced in Section 4.1; it has no falsifiable handle outside the algorithm itself, so its existence is not independently evidenced.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Controlled LLM Decoding via Discrete Auto-regressive Biasing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GVOT7B6J

@misc{pith2026250203685,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Controlled LLM Decoding via Discrete Auto-regressive Biasing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GVOT7B6J}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.03685}
}
read the original abstract

Controlled text generation allows for enforcing user-defined constraints on large language model outputs, an increasingly important field as LLMs become more prevalent in everyday life. One common approach uses energy-based decoding, which defines a target distribution through an energy function that combines multiple constraints into a weighted average. However, these methods often struggle to balance fluency with constraint satisfaction, even with extensive tuning of the energy function's coefficients. In this paper, we identify that this suboptimal balance arises from sampling in continuous space rather than the natural discrete space of text tokens. To address this, we propose Discrete Auto-regressive Biasing, a controlled decoding algorithm that leverages gradients while operating entirely in the discrete text domain. Specifically, we introduce a new formulation for controlled text generation by defining a joint distribution over the generated sequence and an auxiliary bias sequence. To efficiently sample from this joint distribution, we propose a Langevin-within-Gibbs sampling algorithm using gradient-based discrete MCMC. Our method significantly improves constraint satisfaction while maintaining comparable or better fluency, all with even lower computational costs. We demonstrate the advantages of our controlled decoding method on sentiment control, language detoxification, and keyword-guided generation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.03685 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Visualization of our proposed controlled decoding algorithm, Discrete Auto-Regressive [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Visualization of the proposed decoding algorithm, DAB. DAB alternates between sam [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) Average hops, or token updates per sequence, against sampling steps. Both versions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Ablation over different weight values. Higher values result in increase in terms of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Bender, Timnit Gebru, Angelina McMillan-Major, and Shmargaret Shmitchell

    Emily M. Bender, Timnit Gebru, Angelina McMillan-Major, and Shmargaret Shmitchell. On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency , pp. 610–623. Association for Computing Machinery,

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 Bias Weight Value 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95Ext

    Thus we see that our algorithm is fairly robust to various hyper-parameter settings. 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 Bias Weight Value 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95Ext. Sentiment 10 20 30 40 Perp (a) 0.0 0.5 1.0 DLP Proposal Temp Value 0.85 0.86 0.87 0.88 0.89Ext. Sentiment 10.5 11.0 11.5 12.0 Perp (b) 0 500 1000 Top-k Value 0.825 0.850 0.875 0.900 0.925Ext. Sentiment 10...

    work page

  3. [4]

    D.1 F LUENCY METRICS Here we provide more details as to the metrics we use to evaluate the fluency of text generations. 17 Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025 Table 4: Hyper-parameter settings used for DAB on Sentiment-directed generation, language detox- ification, and topic-constrained generation. Hyper-parameter Sentiment Detoxify Topic Propos...

    work page 2020

  4. [6]

    Cold-attack: Jailbreaking llms with stealthiness and controllability

    11 Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025 Xingang Guo, Fangxu Yu, Huan Zhang, Lianhui Qin, and Bin Hu. Cold-attack: Jailbreaking llms with stealthiness and controllability. In International Conference on Machine Learning,

    work page 2025

  5. [7]

    (2023a), Qin et al

    Constraint Function Following Liu et al. (2023a), Qin et al. (2022), we use the differentiable BLEU score introduced by Liu et al. (2022). This function measures the uni-gram similarity between the generated sentences and the target key-words, using an operation very similar to convolution. Reference Text Generation We use GPT-4o to generate high-quality ...

    work page 2023

  6. [8]

    Critic- guided decoding for controlled text generation

    Minbeom Kim, Hwanhee Lee, Kang Min Yoo, Joonsuk Park, Hwaran Lee, and Kyomin Jung. Critic- guided decoding for controlled text generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.10938,

    arXiv

  7. [9]

    Gedi: Generative discriminator guided sequence generation

    Ben Krause, Akhilesh Deepak Gotmare, Bryan McCann, Nitish Shirish Keskar, Shafiq Joty, Richard Socher, and Nazneen Fatema Rajani. Gedi: Generative discriminator guided sequence generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.06367,

    arXiv 2009

  8. [11]

    Alyssa Lees, Vinh Q

    doi: 10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-main.144. Alyssa Lees, Vinh Q. Tran, Yi Tay, Jeffrey Sorensen, Jai Gupta, Donald Metzler, and Lucy Vasser- man. A new generation of perspective api: Efficient multilingual character-level transformers. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining , KDD ’22, pp. 3197–3207. Association f...

    doi:10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-main.144 2022

Show all 28 references
  1. [12]

    doi: 10.1145/3534678.3539147

    ISBN 9781450393850. doi: 10.1145/3534678.3539147. Alisa Liu, Maarten Sap, Ximing Lu, Swabha Swayamdipta, Chandra Bhagavatula, Noah A. Smith, and Yejin Choi. DExperts: Decoding-time controlled text generation with experts and anti- experts. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Mee...

  2. [13]

    Don’t take it literally: An edit-invariant sequence loss for text generation

    Guangyi Liu, Zichao Yang, Tianhua Tao, Xiaodan Liang, Junwei Bao, Zhen Li, Xiaodong He, Shuguang Cui, and Zhiting Hu. Don’t take it literally: An edit-invariant sequence loss for text generation. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Associ...

    2022

  3. [14]

    Xin Liu, Muhammad Khalifa, and Lu Wang

    doi: 10.18653/v1/2022.naacl-main.150. Xin Liu, Muhammad Khalifa, and Lu Wang. Bolt: Fast energy-based controlled text generation with tunable biases. In Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 186–200. Association for Computational Linguistics, July 2023a. doi: 10.18653...

    2022 arXiv

  4. [15]

    Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space

    12 Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025 Tomas Mikolov. Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. arXiv preprint arXiv:1301.3781,

    2025 arXiv

  5. [16]

    John Morris, Eli Lifland, Jin Yong Yoo, Jake Grigsby, Di Jin, and Yanjun Qi

    doi: 10.18653/ v1/2022.acl-long.31. John Morris, Eli Lifland, Jin Yong Yoo, Jake Grigsby, Di Jin, and Yanjun Qi. Textattack: A frame- work for adversarial attacks, data augmentation, and adversarial training in nlp. In Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 119–126,

    2022

  6. [17]

    Lianhui Qin, Sean Welleck, Daniel Khashabi, and Yejin Choi

    doi: 10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.58. Lianhui Qin, Sean Welleck, Daniel Khashabi, and Yejin Choi. Cold decoding: Energy-based con- strained text generation with langevin dynamics. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 35, pp. 9538–9551,

    2020 doi

  7. [19]

    Classifiers are better experts for controllable text generation

    Askhat Sitdikov, Nikita Balagansky, Daniil Gavrilov, and Alexander Markov. Classifiers are better experts for controllable text generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.07276,

    arXiv

  8. [21]

    FUDGE: Controlled text generation with future discriminators

    13 Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025 Kevin Yang and Dan Klein. FUDGE: Controlled text generation with future discriminators. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Com- putational Linguistics: Human Language Techno...

    2025

  9. [22]

    (2022), which is further investigated by Pynadath et al

    14 Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025 A D ISCRETE LANGEVIN PROPOSAL Our proposed controlled text generation leverages the gradient-based discrete sampling algorithm in Zhang et al. (2022), which is further investigated by Pynadath et al. (2024). Using the same notati...

    2022

  10. [23]

    Thus we can represent the distances between the tokens as 1 − ˆbij. This leads us to the proposal function in 7, which we place below for convenience: b′ i ∼ Categorical softmax j∈V 1 τ (∇f ( ˆB|X))ij(1 − ˆbij) Here, b′ i refers to the token we sample from the categorical dist...

    2025

  11. [26]

    For the baselines, we run the code within their codebase. While we minimize the changes made to the original code, we note that there are some necessary modifications needed in order to ensure that the experimental setting is consistent across all methods evaluated. This due t...

    2024

  12. [28]

    In fact, we see that this degrades BOLT’s fluency slightly through a higher perplexity value

    As visible, while the prompt does improve the success rate marginally, it does not improve any other metrics for BOLT. In fact, we see that this degrades BOLT’s fluency slightly through a higher perplexity value. Examples In Table 9 we show examples of generations for the vari...

    2025

  13. [2002]

    doi: 10.1023/A:1023562417138

    ISSN 1573-7713. doi: 10.1023/A:1023562417138. Leo Schwinn, David Dobre, Stephan G ¨unnemann, and Gauthier Gidel. Adversarial attacks and defenses in large language models: Old and new threats. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems Workshops, pp. 103–117. PMLR,

    doi

  14. [2013]

    On the opportu- nities and risks of foundation models

    Rishi Bommasani, Drew A Hudson, Ehsan Adeli, Russ Altman, Simran Arora, Sydney von Arx, Michael S Bernstein, Jeannette Bohg, Antoine Bosselut, Emma Brunskill, et al. On the opportu- nities and risks of foundation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07258,

    arXiv

  15. [2019]

    Laura Weidinger, John Mellor, Maribeth Rauh, Conor Griffin, Jonathan Uesato, Po-Sen Huang, Myra Cheng, Mia Glaese, Borja Balle, Atoosa Kasirzadeh, et al

    doi: 10.18653/v1/W19-2304. Laura Weidinger, John Mellor, Maribeth Rauh, Conor Griffin, Jonathan Uesato, Po-Sen Huang, Myra Cheng, Mia Glaese, Borja Balle, Atoosa Kasirzadeh, et al. Ethical and social risks of harm from language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.04359,

    arXiv

  16. [2020]

    Katayoon Goshvadi, Haoran Sun, Xingchao Liu, Azade Nova, Ruqi Zhang, Will Sussman Grath- wohl, Dale Schuurmans, and Hanjun Dai

    doi: 10.18653/v1/2020.findings-emnlp.301. Katayoon Goshvadi, Haoran Sun, Xingchao Liu, Azade Nova, Ruqi Zhang, Will Sussman Grath- wohl, Dale Schuurmans, and Hanjun Dai. Discs: A benchmark for discrete sampling. In Neural Information Processing Systems Datasets and Benchmarks Track,

    2020 doi

  17. [2021]

    doi: 10.1145/3442188.3445922

    ISBN 9781450383097. doi: 10.1145/3442188.3445922. Yoshua Bengio, Nicholas L ´eonard, and Aaron Courville. Estimating or propagating gradients through stochastic neurons for conditional computation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1308.3432,

  18. [2022]

    Samuel Gehman, Suchin Gururangan, Maarten Sap, Yejin Choi, and Noah A

    ISSN 2835-8856. Samuel Gehman, Suchin Gururangan, Maarten Sap, Yejin Choi, and Noah A. Smith. RealToxici- tyPrompts: Evaluating neural toxic degeneration in language models. In Findings of the Asso- ciation for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, pp. 3356–3369. Association ...

    2020

  19. [2023]

    Gradient-based constrained sampling from lan- guage models

    Sachin Kumar, Biswajit Paria, and Yulia Tsvetkov. Gradient-based constrained sampling from lan- guage models. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Lan- guage Processing, pp. 2251–2277. Association for Computational Linguistics, December

    2022

  20. [2024]

    Jiaming He, Wenbo Jiang, Guanyu Hou, Wenshu Fan, Rui Zhang, and Hongwei Li

    doi: 10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.864. Jiaming He, Wenbo Jiang, Guanyu Hou, Wenshu Fan, Rui Zhang, and Hongwei Li. Talk too much: Poisoning large language models under token limit. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.14795,

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.