LLM Probability Concentration: How Alignment Shrinks the Generative Horizon
Chenghao Yang, Sida Li, Ari Holtzman

TL;DR
This paper introduces the Branching Factor (BF), a measure of output predictability in LLMs, revealing how alignment tuning reduces output diversity and influences model behavior, especially in complex reasoning tasks.
Contribution
The paper proposes BF as a new metric to quantify output concentration, demonstrating how alignment tuning sharpens output distributions and affects model predictability and reasoning stability.
Findings
Alignment tuning reduces BF by 2-5 times overall.
BF decreases as generation progresses, indicating increased predictability.
Aligned Chain-of-Thought models generate longer, more deterministic reasoning chains.
Abstract
Despite their impressive capabilities, aligned large language models (LLMs) often generate outputs that lack diversity. What drives this consistency in the generation? We investigate this phenomenon through the lens of probability concentration in the model's output distribution. To quantify this concentration, we introduce the *Branching Factor* (BF) -- a token-invariant measure of the effective number of plausible next steps during generation. Our empirical analysis reveals two key findings: (1) BF often decreases as generation progresses, suggesting that LLMs become more predictable as they generate. (2) alignment tuning substantially sharpens the model's output distribution from the outset, reducing BF by a factor of 2-5 overall, and up to an order of magnitude (e.g., from 12 to 1.2) at the beginning positions. This stark reduction helps explain why aligned models often appear less…
Peer Reviews
Decision·Submitted to ICLR 2026
Investigating how "concentrated" the probability distribution of language models is under different situations is an interesting research question. The experiment "teacher-forcing" the base model's generation with a prefix generated by an instruction-tuned model is quite interesting.
Personally, I found this paper a bit hard to read and understand due to certain imprecisions. **Definition of Branching Factor.** To define the `branching factor`, the paper first states there exists an “effective tree” $\mathcal{T}$ with high probability sequences $\mathbf{y}\_{\geq t}$. It, however, never defines exactly what it means by “high probability”. In section 4.1, the paper then re-defines $\mathcal{T}$ as the perplexity: $\exp\Big( H(p(Y\_{\geq t} \mid \mathbf{x} \circ \mathbf{y}\
1. The technique is simple and reasonably well-motivated 2. The paper is mostly clear (though I do find it to abuse of mathiness, which, in my reading, adds little) 3. The technique can power interesting decisions regarding decoding algorithms and/or models and/or prompting techniques.
I find the positioning of the work unclear and, as a result I perceive some mismatch between what it is claiming (or what it might be claiming) and what it delivers empirically. Part of the motivation for this BS technique is 'token-invariance', but this, I believe, stayed at the level of argumentation only, with no empirical validation against techniques that do not deliver token-invariance. For example, would some 'not-token-invariant' technique lead to essentially different and/or misleadin
The paper introduces a clear, distribution-level lens on why aligned LLMs tend to be more deterministic, formalizing “probability concentration” via a task-agnostic Branching Factor (BF) instead of surface diversity metrics. The BF is grounded in information theory—defined as the exponentiated entropy rate over continuations—and connected to a balanced-tree abstraction of the effective output space, which makes the idea intuitive and comparable across settings. The authors also provide two pract
Some claims hinge on estimator assumptions and experimental choices that invite further stress-testing. The AEP-based estimator inherits conditions (e.g., long sequences, autoregressive generation, finite precision) and approximations; while these are argued to be mild and empirically supported, deviations (short outputs, atypical decoding, domain shift) could bias BF estimates, and Monte Carlo underestimation issues remain salient for short generations. Causal attributions around alignment are
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsStatistical and Computational Modeling · Data Quality and Management · Reservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
