aiqbench analysis
This research introduces the Word Coverage Score (WCS) to quantify how standard decoding strategies like Top-$p$ and Top-$k$ inadvertently prune low-frequency vocabulary, effectively acting as unintended censorship mechanisms in LLMs. By measuring the lexical survival rate of high-information words within the probability space, the study provides a diagnostic framework for optimizing the trade-off between text coherence and linguistic diversity without altering model weights or training data.
Lost in Sampling: Assessing Lexical Reachability in LLMs via the Word Coverage Score (WCS)
arXiv:2605.27268v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Modern Large Language Models (LLMs) are often criticized for producing repetitive and homogeneous text, despite possessing vast latent vocabularies. While previous research has focused on model knowledge and training data, we investigate the role of decoding mechanics in suppressing linguistic diversity. We introduce the Word Coverage Score (WCS), a metric that quantifies the extent to which contextually appropriate human vocabulary is mathematically pruned by standard sampling filters (e.g., Top-$p$, Top-$k$, and Min-$p$). Rather than assessing static knowledge, the WCS measures the lexical survival rate of low-frequency, high-information human words as a function of sampling parameters. By auditing open-weight models on human-authored corpus fragments, we identify which logical lexical choices are rendered unreachable by the decoder, even when they reside within the probability space. Our results provide quantitative evidence that industry-standard sampling defaults act as unintended censorship mechanisms, smoothing the unique textures of human expression into a homogenized discourse. The WCS offers a rigorous framework for optimizing the trade-off between text coherence and lexical richness, providing a diagnostic tool for preserving the diversity of human language in generative models.
Abstract:Modern Large Language Models (LLMs) are often criticized for producing repetitive and homogeneous text, despite possessing vast latent vocabularies. While previous research has focused on model knowledge and training data, we investigate the role of decoding mechanics in suppressing linguistic diversity. We introduce the Word Coverage Score (WCS), a metric that quantifies the extent to which contextually appropriate human vocabulary is mathematically pruned by standard sampling filters (e.g., Top-$p$, Top-$k$, and Min-$p$). Rather than assessing static knowledge, the WCS measures the lexical survival rate of low-frequency, high-information human words as a function of sampling parameters. By auditing open-weight models on human-authored corpus fragments, we identify which logical lexical choices are rendered unreachable by the decoder, even when they reside within the probability space. Our results provide quantitative evidence that industry-standard sampling defaults act as unintended censorship mechanisms, smoothing the unique textures of human expression into a homogenized discourse. The WCS offers a rigorous framework for optimizing the trade-off between text coherence and lexical richness, providing a diagnostic tool for preserving the diversity of human language in generative models.
15 pages, 6 figures. Accepted to Findings of EMNLP 2026
Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2605.27268 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2605.27268v2 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2605.27268 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 284 words
Related coverage

Game-Theoretic Disempowerment: Loss of Control to Agencyless AI
LessWrong · Sep 27, 2026

Informe de riesgos de la IA de frontera (febrero–marzo de 2026)
METR · May 19, 2026

Frontier AI Risk Report (February–March 2026)
METR · May 19, 2026

Frontier Risk Report (February to March 2026)
METR · May 19, 2026