user: text: Write a concise one-sentence TLDR summary of the scientific paper content below.

Title: The Curious Case of Neural Text Degeneration

Paper content:
Despite considerable advances in neural language modeling, it remains an open question what the best decoding strategy is for text generation from a language model (e.g.  to generate a story).
The counter-intuitive empirical observation is that even though the use of likelihood as training objective leads to high quality models for a broad range of language understanding tasks, maximization-based decoding methods such as beam search lead to degeneration — output text that is bland, incoherent, or gets stuck in repetitive loops.
To address this we propose Nucleus Sampling, a simple but effective method to draw considerably  higher  quality  text  out  of  neural  language  models.
Our  approach avoids text degeneration by truncating the unreliable tail of the probability distribution, sampling from the dynamic  nucleus  of  tokens containing the vast majority of the probability mass.
To properly examine current maximization-based and stochastic decoding methods, we compare generations from each of these methods to the distribution of human text along several axes such as likelihood, diversity, and repetition.
Our results show that (1) maximization is an inappropriate decoding objective for open-ended text generation, (2) the probability distributions of the best current language models have an unreliable tail which needs to be truncated during generation and (3) Nucleus Sampling is the best decoding strategy for generating long-form text that is both high-quality — as measured by human evaluation — and as diverse as human-written text.
On February 14th 2019, OpenAI surprised the scientific community with an impressively highquality article about Ovid's Unicorn, written by GPT-2.
1 Notably, the top-quality generations obtained from the model rely on randomness in the decoding method, in particular through top-k sampling that samples the next word from the top k most probable choices (Fan et al., 2018; Holtzman et al., 2018; Radford et al., 2019) , instead of aiming to decode text that maximizes likelihood.
In fact, decoding strategies that optimize for output with high probability, such as beam search, lead to text that is incredibly degenerate, even when using state-of-the-art models such as GPT-2-117M, as shown in Figure 1 .
This may seem counter-intuitive, as one would expect that good models would assign higher probability to more human-like, grammatical text.
Indeed, language models do generally assign high scores to well-formed text, yet the highest scores for longer texts are often generic, repetitive, and awkward.
Perhaps equally surprising is the right side of Figure 1 , which shows that pure sampling -sampling directly from the probabilities predicted by the model -results in text that is incoherent and almost unrelated to the context.
Why is text produced by pure sampling so degenerate?
In this work we show that the "unreliable tail" is to blame.
This unreliable tail is composed of tens of thousands of candidate tokens with relatively low probability that are over-represented in the aggregate.
To overcome these shortcomings we introduce Nucleus Sampling ( §3.1).
The key intuition of Nucleus Sampling is that the vast majority of probability mass at each time step is concentrated in the nucleus, a small subset of the vocabulary that tends to range between one and a thousand candidates.
Instead of relying on a fixed top-k, or using a temperature parameter to control the shape of the distribution without sufficiently suppressing the unreliable tail distribution, we propose sampling from the top-p portion of the probability mass, expanding and contracting the candidate pool dynamically.
In order to compare current methods to Nucleus Sampling, we compare various distributional properties of generated text to the reference distribution, such as the likelihood of veering into repetition and the perplexity of generated text.
The latter reveals that text generated by maximization or top-k sampling is too probable, indicating a lack of diversity and divergence in vocabulary usage from the human distribution.
On the other hand, pure sampling produces text that is significantly less likely than the gold, corresponding to lower generation quality.
Vocabulary usage and Self-BLEU (Zhu et al., 2018) statistics reveal that high values of k are needed to make top-k sampling match human statistics.
Yet, generations based on high values of k are also found to have incredibly high variance in likelihood, hinting at qualitatively observable incoherency issues.
Nucleus Sampling can easily match reference perplexity through a proper value of p, without facing the resulting incoherence caused by setting k high enough to match distributional statistics.
Finally, we perform Human Unified with Statistical Evaluation (HUSE; Hashimoto et al., 2019) to jointly assess the overall quality and diversity of the decoding strategies, which cannot be captured using either human or automatics evaluation alone.
The HUSE evaluation demonstrates that Nucleus sampling is the best overall decoding strategy.
We include generated examples for qualitative analysis -see Figure 9 for a representative example, and further examples in the appendix.
This paper provided a deep analysis into the properties of the most common decoding methods for open-ended language generation.
We have shown that likelihood maximizing decoding causes repetition and overly generic language usage, while sampling methods without truncation risk sampling from the low-confidence tail of a model's predicted distribution.
Further, we proposed Nucleus Samplingas a solution that captures the region of confidence of language models effectively.
In future work, we wish to dynamically characterize this region of confidence and include a more semantic utility function to guide the decoding process.

assistant: text: Current language generation systems either aim for high likelihood and devolve into generic repetition or miscalibrate their stochasticity—we provide evidence of both and propose a solution: Nucleus Sampling.