← All topics

llm decoding

2 captures, most recent first.

@ziv_ravid

— saved image

Ravid Shwartz Ziv @ziv_ravid · 1h
2/5
Top-p and top-k were built for short outputs. They cut the list of candidate words the same way no matter how sure the model is. Newer samplers like P-less, Top-H and top-nσ look at the whole distribution at every step and adjust. Min-p adapts, but only looks at the top word
1 reply · 1 repost · 3 likes · 164 views

Ravid Shwartz Ziv @ziv_ravid · 1h
3/5
We tested ten open models, from tiny to 120B, on outputs up to 64K tokens. The adaptive samplers keep long outputs readable, and human raters preferred P-less over top-p 9 times out of 10. The bigger the model, the bigger the gap.

[figure: two-panel chart. (a) Human pairwise preference vs. Top-p 0.9: bars of MTurk Win Rate (%) for P-less, Top-H, Top-nσ, Min-p 0.1, Top-k 50, Top-p 0.9 at model scales 8B, 70B, 120B, with a 50% baseline line. (b) GPT-4o judge score across model scale (0-10) for the same samplers at 8B, 70B, 120B.]
Figure 3: Human and automated preference agree: the full-distribution-aware family leads, min-p sits in the middle, and the gap to standard truncation grows with model scale. (a) MTurk pairwise win rate over the standard top-p 0.9 baseline across three model scales. The 50% line marks the baseline self-tie. (b) GPT-4o 0-10 judge score across model scale.
1 reply · 1 repost · 2 likes · 142 views

Ravid Shwartz Ziv @ziv_ravid · 1h
4/5
Why it happens: at every step you can check where the chosen word sits in the model's ranking. Normal writing picks from a handful of good options. With top-p, by the end the model takes its #1 choice every single time, which what a loop is. The adaptive samplers never get there.
Note from Claude Sonnet 5

Part of a thread (posts 2/5 to 4/5) by Ravid Shwartz Ziv on sampling methods for long LLM outputs: adaptive samplers such as P-less, Top-H and top-nσ versus top-p and top-k, tested on ten open models up to 64K tokens, with a figure of human and GPT-4o judge preference results.

samplingtop-pp-lesslong outputstext degenerationllm decoding

rebekah @bekhovsgun

— saved image

rebekah @bekhovsgun [Follow]

Remembering the night I got fixated on paper data storage and learned you can fit about 140 pages of (encoded) plaintext on a single sheet of paper. The page below includes the encoder legend and its source code repeated 26 times

It's illegible at a glance and breaks when photographed or shared on social media, but is totally reconstructable without guidance if printed, scanned, and handed to an LLM for decoding

Do with that what you will!

[attached image: a printed page with two small corner squares, a few lines of tiny header text, and a large square block of grayscale noise. Header text, tiny and only partly legible:]
PAPER BLOCK v0.1 | PBLK0001 | FOUR-LEVEL PRINTED OPTICAL STORAGE
Interior field: row-major, 2 bits/cell. 00=16 01=96 10=176 11=240.
Envelope: magic | manifest_len | compressed_len | raw_len | SHA-256 | JSON manifest | zlib payload.
Payload: 78423 bytes raw / 29105 compressed. Copies: 5.
SHA-256: a2dc22cb6b66ea4b3af82dc2fc8c7b594766993399acc5295f26dd94abbec953 [tiny print, digits may be misread]
Decode: sample each cell center; classify to nearest listed level; read left-to-right, top-to-bottom; pack four 2-bit symbols per byte, MSB first; parse envelope; verify SHA-256.
Note from Claude Sonnet 5

Tweet about storing about 140 pages of encoded plaintext on one sheet of paper, with the encoder legend and source code repeated 26 times, readable only by printing, scanning and giving it to an LLM to decode. The attached image is a printed page with a tiny header describing a four-level optical encoding format above a large square of grayscale noise; the noise pattern itself is not transcribable.

paper data storageoptical storageencodingllm decodingsteganographydata density