pith. sign in

arxiv: 2509.21267 · v3 · submitted 2025-09-25 · 💻 cs.CL · cs.CY

Task-Dependent Evaluation of LLM Output Homogenization: A Taxonomy-Guided Framework

Shomik Jain , Jack Lanchantin , Maximilian Nickel , Candace Ross , Karen Ullrich , Ashia Wilson , Jamelle Watson-Daniels This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 13:30 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CL cs.CY
keywords LLM homogenizationtask-dependent diversityfunctional diversityoutput diversitydiversity-quality trade-offtaxonomysampling techniqueuser study validation
0
0 comments X

The pith

A task-specific way of measuring diversity in LLM outputs reveals that the common diversity-quality trade-off may be an artifact of task-agnostic evaluation.

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

The paper argues that homogenization in large language models is not uniformly problematic because different tasks call for different kinds of variation. For math problems the same final answer can be reached by distinct strategies, while creative writing benefits from changes in plot or setting. To capture this distinction the authors build a taxonomy that defines functional diversity as the kind of difference a user would actually notice and value for a given task. They validate the taxonomy with a small user study and then introduce a sampling method that adds diversity only where it is desired. Experiments using this approach produce evidence that apparent quality costs disappear once diversity and quality are both judged in a task-aware manner.

Core claim

The authors establish that a taxonomy of task-dependent functional diversity allows models to increase output variety selectively, and that this selective increase removes the apparent trade-off between diversity and quality that appears when both concepts are assessed without reference to the task.

What carries the argument

A task taxonomy that defines distinct notions of functional diversity according to whether users would perceive two responses as meaningfully different for that task.

If this is right

  • For objective tasks such as math, diversity should be measured by variation in solution strategy rather than final answer.
  • For creative tasks, diversity should be measured by variation in narrative elements such as plot and setting.
  • A task-dependent sampling technique can raise diversity only in the places where homogenization is actually undesired.
  • Quality assessments that ignore task type can produce misleading evidence of a diversity-quality trade-off.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same taxonomy could be used to design reward models that penalize unwanted homogeneity during fine-tuning.
  • Extending the taxonomy to additional task families such as code generation or summarization would test how general the functional-diversity distinctions are.
  • If the selective sampling method scales to larger models, it could reduce the need for post-hoc diversity penalties that currently hurt performance on objective tasks.

Load-bearing premise

The taxonomy correctly captures what users perceive as functionally different outputs for each task category, as supported by the small user study.

What would settle it

A larger user study in which participants judge pairs of outputs as functionally equivalent or different in ways that contradict the taxonomy categories would undermine the framework.

read the original abstract

Large language models often generate homogeneous outputs, but whether this is problematic depends on the specific task. For objective math tasks, responses may vary in terms of problem-solving strategy but should maintain the same verifiable answer. Whereas, for creative writing tasks, we often expect variation in key narrative components (e.g. plot, setting, etc.) beyond mere vocabulary diversity. Prior work on homogenization rarely conceptualizes diversity in a task-dependent way. We address this gap with four contributions: (1) a task taxonomy with distinct notions of functional diversity -- whether a user would perceive two responses as meaningfully different for a given task; (2) a small user study validating that the taxonomy aligns with human perception of functional diversity; (3) a task-dependent sampling technique that increases diversity only where homogenization is undesired; (4) evidence challenging the perceived diversity-quality trade-off, showing it may stem from mis-conceptualizing both diversity and quality in a task-agnostic way.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims that LLM output homogenization should be evaluated in a task-dependent manner using a new taxonomy of functional diversity (e.g., strategy variation for math tasks vs. narrative component variation for creative writing). It reports a small user study validating that the taxonomy matches human perceptions of meaningful differences, introduces a task-dependent sampling technique to increase diversity only where undesired, and presents evidence that the commonly perceived diversity-quality trade-off may be an artifact of task-agnostic measurement.

Significance. If the taxonomy and user-study validation hold, the work offers a principled shift from generic diversity metrics to task-specific notions of functional diversity, with direct implications for sampling and evaluation methods. The challenge to the diversity-quality trade-off would be a useful corrective if the supporting evidence is robust and generalizable beyond the studied tasks.

major comments (2)
  1. [User study validation (contribution 2)] The central claim that the taxonomy aligns with human perception of functional diversity rests on the small user study, yet the abstract (and presumably the corresponding methods/results section) provides no details on sample size, task coverage, inter-rater reliability, statistical tests, or exclusion criteria. Without these, it is difficult to assess whether participant judgments generalize or show sufficient agreement on what counts as 'meaningfully different' for each task category.
  2. [Results / contribution 4] The evidence challenging the diversity-quality trade-off depends on the task-dependent sampling technique and the operationalization of both diversity and quality. The manuscript should clarify in the results section how quality was measured (e.g., via human ratings or automatic metrics) and whether the reported improvement holds after controlling for task-specific definitions of functional diversity.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Introduction] The abstract refers to 'prior work on homogenization' without citing specific papers; adding 2-3 representative references in the introduction would help situate the taxonomy.
  2. [Taxonomy section] Notation for the taxonomy categories could be made more explicit (e.g., a table summarizing the distinct notions of functional diversity per task type) to improve readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed comments. We address each major comment below and outline the revisions we will make to improve clarity and completeness.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [User study validation (contribution 2)] The central claim that the taxonomy aligns with human perception of functional diversity rests on the small user study, yet the abstract (and presumably the corresponding methods/results section) provides no details on sample size, task coverage, inter-rater reliability, statistical tests, or exclusion criteria. Without these, it is difficult to assess whether participant judgments generalize or show sufficient agreement on what counts as 'meaningfully different' for each task category.

    Authors: We agree that the user study reporting is currently insufficient for proper evaluation. Although the study was intentionally small as an initial validation of the taxonomy, the manuscript does not adequately describe its methodological details. In the revised manuscript we will expand the methods section to report the sample size, the specific tasks and categories covered, inter-rater reliability (including appropriate agreement statistics), the statistical tests used, and any exclusion criteria. We will also update the abstract to briefly summarize these aspects so readers can better judge generalizability and agreement on meaningful differences. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results / contribution 4] The evidence challenging the diversity-quality trade-off depends on the task-dependent sampling technique and the operationalization of both diversity and quality. The manuscript should clarify in the results section how quality was measured (e.g., via human ratings or automatic metrics) and whether the reported improvement holds after controlling for task-specific definitions of functional diversity.

    Authors: We accept this point. The results section currently does not provide sufficient detail on quality measurement or explicit controls using the task-specific diversity definitions. In the revision we will clarify that quality was evaluated via human ratings on task-appropriate criteria (e.g., answer correctness for objective tasks and narrative coherence for creative tasks). We will also add analysis demonstrating that the observed diversity gains without quality degradation continue to hold when diversity is operationalized according to the functional categories in the taxonomy. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in derivation chain

full rationale

The paper proposes a new task taxonomy defining functional diversity in task-dependent terms, validates alignment with human perception via a small user study, and applies the framework to a sampling technique and evidence on the diversity-quality trade-off. These steps form an independent contribution chain resting on the taxonomy definition and study results rather than reducing by construction to fitted parameters, self-referential equations, or load-bearing self-citations. No equations, predictions, or uniqueness theorems are described that collapse the central claims into their own inputs. The derivation remains self-contained against the presented empirical validation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the assumption that functional diversity is task-specific and that human judgments align with the taxonomy; no free parameters or invented physical entities are evident from the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Human perception of meaningful difference in LLM outputs aligns with the proposed task taxonomy
    This premise is invoked to justify the taxonomy and is checked via the user study described in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5719 in / 1223 out tokens · 30105 ms · 2026-05-18T13:30:59.343838+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Cognitive offloading and the speedup illusion in human-AI interaction

    cs.CY 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Preregistered behavioral study identifies a speedup illusion where users overestimate time savings from AI assistance on cognitive tasks despite no actual difference in completion times.

  2. Where does output diversity collapse in post-training?

    cs.CL 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Diversity collapse in post-trained LLMs is driven by data composition during training, occurs at stages like supervised fine-tuning, and is embedded in model weights rather than imposed by generation format.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers · 5 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION format.date year duplicate empty "emp...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Creel, Ananya Kumar, Dan Jurafsky, and Percy S Liang

    Rishi Bommasani, Kathleen A. Creel, Ananya Kumar, Dan Jurafsky, and Percy S Liang. Picking on the same person: Does algorithmic monoculture lead to outcome homogenization? In S. Koyejo, S. Mohamed, A. Agarwal, D. Belgrave, K. Cho, and A. Oh, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 35, pages 3663--3678. Curran Associates, Inc., 2...

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    How people use chatgpt

    Aaron Chatterji, Thomas Cunningham, David J Deming, Zoe Hitzig, Christopher Ong, Carl Yan Shan, and Kevin Wadman. How people use chatgpt. Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research, 2025

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    Pal: Pluralistic alignment framework for learning from heterogeneous preferences

    Daiwei Chen, Yi Chen, Aniket Rege, and Ramya Korlakai Vinayak. Pal: Pluralistic alignment framework for learning from heterogeneous preferences. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.08469, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Modifying large language model post- training for diverse creative writing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.17126, 2025

    John Joon Young Chung, Vishakh Padmakumar, Melissa Roemmele, Yuqian Sun, and Max Kreminski. Modifying Large Language Model Post-Training for Diverse Creative Writing . arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.17126, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Towards Measuring the Representation of Subjective Global Opinions in Language Models

    Esin Durmus, Karina Nguyen, Thomas I Liao, Nicholas Schiefer, Amanda Askell, Anton Bakhtin, Carol Chen, Zac Hatfield-Dodds, Danny Hernandez, Nicholas Joseph, et al. Towards Measuring the Representation of Subjective Global Opinions in Language Models . arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.16388, 2023

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    The Value of Disagreement in AI Design, Evaluation, and Alignment

    Sina Fazelpour and Will Fleisher. The Value of Disagreement in AI Design, Evaluation, and Alignment . In Proceedings of the 2025 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, pages 2138--2150, 2025

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    How to evaluate reward models for rlhf

    Evan Frick, Tianle Li, Connor Chen, Wei-Lin Chiang, Anastasios Nikolas Angelopoulos, Jiantao Jiao, Banghua Zhu, Joseph E Gonzalez, and Ion Stoica. How to evaluate reward models for rlhf. In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2025

    work page 2025

  9. [9]

    Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Dataset

    Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Saurav Kadavath, Akul Arora, Steven Basart, Eric Tang, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving with the MATH Dataset . arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.03874, 2021

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  10. [10]

    Position: Scarce Resource Allocations That Rely On Machine Learning Should Be Randomized

    Shomik Jain, Kathleen Creel, and Ashia Camage Wilson. Position: Scarce Resource Allocations That Rely On Machine Learning Should Be Randomized . In Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, 2024 a . https://openreview.net/forum?id=44qxX6Ty6F

    work page 2024

  11. [11]

    Algorithmic Pluralism: A Structural Approach to Equal Opportunity

    Shomik Jain, Vinith Suriyakumar, Kathleen Creel, and Ashia Wilson. Algorithmic Pluralism: A Structural Approach to Equal Opportunity . In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, pages 197--206, 2024 b

    work page 2024

  12. [12]

    Correlated Errors in Large Language Models

    Elliot Kim, Avi Garg, Kenny Peng, and Nikhil Garg. Correlated Errors in Large Language Models . arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.07962, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    Understanding the effects of RLHF on LLM generalisation and diversity

    Robert Kirk, Ishita Mediratta, Christoforos Nalmpantis, Jelena Luketina, Eric Hambro, Edward Grefenstette, and Roberta Raileanu. Understanding the effects of RLHF on LLM generalisation and diversity. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024. https://openreview.net/forum?id=PXD3FAVHJT

    work page 2024

  14. [14]

    Tulu 3: Pushing Frontiers in Open Language Model Post-Training

    Nathan Lambert, Jacob Morrison, Valentina Pyatkin, Shengyi Huang, Hamish Ivison, Faeze Brahman, Lester James V Miranda, Alisa Liu, Nouha Dziri, Shane Lyu, et al. Tulu 3: Pushing frontiers in open language model post-training. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.15124, 2024

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  15. [15]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.18101

    Jack Lanchantin, Angelica Chen, Shehzaad Dhuliawala, Ping Yu, Jason Weston, Sainbayar Sukhbaatar, and Ilia Kulikov. Diverse Preference Optimization . arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.18101, 2025 a

    work page arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    Bridging Offline and Online Reinforcement Learning for LLMs

    Jack Lanchantin, Angelica Chen, Janice Lan, Xian Li, Swarnadeep Saha, Tianlu Wang, Jing Xu, Ping Yu, Weizhe Yuan, Jason E Weston, et al. Bridging Offline and Online Reinforcement Learning for LLMs . arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.21495, 2025 b

    work page arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    Jointly reinforcing diversity and quality in language model generations.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.02534, 2025

    Tianjian Li, Yiming Zhang, Ping Yu, Swarnadeep Saha, Daniel Khashabi, Jason Weston, Jack Lanchantin, and Tianlu Wang. Jointly reinforcing diversity and quality in language model generations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.02534, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    Let's Verify Step By Step

    Hunter Lightman, Vineet Kosaraju, Yuri Burda, Harrison Edwards, Bowen Baker, Teddy Lee, Jan Leike, John Schulman, Ilya Sutskever, and Karl Cobbe. Let's Verify Step By Step . In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023

    work page 2023

  19. [19]

    WildBench: Benchmarking LLMs with Challenging Tasks from Real Users in the Wild

    Bill Yuchen Lin, Yuntian Deng, Khyathi Chandu, Abhilasha Ravichander, Valentina Pyatkin, Nouha Dziri, Ronan Le Bras, and Yejin Choi. WildBench: Benchmarking LLMs with Challenging Tasks from Real Users in the Wild . In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2025

    work page 2025

  20. [20]

    Homogenizing Effect of Large Language Model on Creativity: An Empirical Comparison of Human and ChatGPT Writing , 2024

    Kibum Moon. Homogenizing Effect of Large Language Model on Creativity: An Empirical Comparison of Human and ChatGPT Writing , 2024

    work page 2024

  21. [21]

    Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Model

    Rafael Rafailov, Archit Sharma, Eric Mitchell, Christopher D Manning, Stefano Ermon, and Chelsea Finn. Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Model . Advances in neural information processing systems, 36: 0 53728--53741, 2023

    work page 2023

  22. [22]

    Whose Opinions Do Language Models Reflect? In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 29971--30004

    Shibani Santurkar, Esin Durmus, Faisal Ladhak, Cinoo Lee, Percy Liang, and Tatsunori Hashimoto. Whose Opinions Do Language Models Reflect? In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 29971--30004. PMLR, 2023

    work page 2023

  23. [23]

    Towards Data-Centric RLHF: Simple Metrics for Preference Dataset Comparison

    Judy Hanwen Shen, Archit Sharma, and Jun Qin. Towards Data-Centric RLHF: Simple Metrics for Preference Dataset Comparison . arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.09603, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  24. [24]

    Evaluating the Diversity and Quality of LLM Generated Content

    Alexander Shypula, Shuo Li, Botong Zhang, Vishakh Padmakumar, Kayo Yin, and Osbert Bastani. Evaluating the Diversity and Quality of LLM Generated Content . In ICLR Workshop on Deep Learning for Code, 2025

    work page 2025

  25. [25]

    Diverse Preference Learning for Capabilities and Alignment

    Stewart Slocum, Asher Parker-Sartori, and Dylan Hadfield-Menell. Diverse Preference Learning for Capabilities and Alignment . In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2025

    work page 2025

  26. [26]

    A Roadmap to Pluralistic Alignment

    Taylor Sorensen, Jared Moore, Jillian Fisher, Mitchell Gordon, Niloofar Mireshghallah, Christopher Michael Rytting, Andre Ye, Liwei Jiang, Ximing Lu, Nouha Dziri, et al. A Roadmap to Pluralistic Alignment . In Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 46280--46302, 2024

    work page 2024

  27. [27]

    Tamkin, M

    Alex Tamkin, Miles McCain, Kunal Handa, Esin Durmus, Liane Lovitt, Ankur Rathi, Saffron Huang, Alfred Mountfield, Jerry Hong, Stuart Ritchie, et al. Clio: Privacy-preserving insights into real-world ai use. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.13678, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  28. [28]

    Large Language Models That Replace Human Participants Can Harmfully Misportray and Flatten Identity Groups

    Angelina Wang, Jamie Morgenstern, and John P Dickerson. Large Language Models That Replace Human Participants Can Harmfully Misportray and Flatten Identity Groups . Nature Machine Intelligence, pages 1--12, 2025 a

    work page 2025

  29. [29]

    Multilingual Prompting for Improving LLM Generation Diversity

    Qihan Wang, Shidong Pan, Tal Linzen, and Emily Black. Multilingual Prompting for Improving LLM Generation Diversity . arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.15229, 2025 b

    work page arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    Measuring short-form factuality in large language models

    Jason Wei, Nguyen Karina, Hyung Won Chung, Yunxin Joy Jiao, Spencer Papay, Amelia Glaese, John Schulman, and William Fedus. Measuring short-form factuality in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.04368, 2024

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  31. [31]

    RocketEval: Efficient Automated LLM Evaluation via Grading Checklist

    Tianjun Wei, Wei Wen, Ruizhi Qiao, Xing Sun, and Jianghong Ma. RocketEval: Efficient Automated LLM Evaluation via Grading Checklist . In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2025

    work page 2025

  32. [32]

    We're Different, We're the Same: Creative Homogeneity Across LLMs

    Emily Wenger and Yoed Kenett. We're Different, We're the Same: Creative Homogeneity Across LLMs . arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.19361, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    Generative Monoculture in Large Language Models

    Fan Wu, Emily Black, and Varun Chandrasekaran. Generative Monoculture in Large Language Models . In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2025

    work page 2025

  34. [34]

    No Preference Left Behind: Group Distributional Preference Optimization

    Binwei Yao, Zefan Cai, Yun-Shiuan Chuang, Shanglin Yang, Ming Jiang, Diyi Yang, and Junjie Hu. No Preference Left Behind: Group Distributional Preference Optimization . In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2025

    work page 2025

  35. [35]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.09650 , year=

    Lily Hong Zhang, Smitha Milli, Karen Jusko, Jonathan Smith, Brandon Amos, Wassim, Bouaziz, Manon Revel, Jack Kussman, Lisa Titus, Bhaktipriya Radharapu, Jane Yu, Vidya Sarma, Kris Rose, and Maximilian Nickel. Cultivating Pluralism In Algorithmic Monoculture: The Community Alignment Dataset . arXiv preprint arXiv: 2507.09650, 2025 a

    work page arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    Forcing diffuse distributions out of language models

    Yiming Zhang, Avi Schwarzschild, Nicholas Carlini, J Zico Kolter, and Daphne Ippolito. Forcing diffuse distributions out of language models. In First Conference on Language Modeling, 2024. https://openreview.net/forum?id=9JY1QLVFPZ

    work page 2024

  37. [37]

    NoveltyBench: Evaluating Language Models for Humanlike Diversity

    Yiming Zhang, Harshita Diddee, Susan Holm, Hanchen Liu, Xinyue Liu, Vinay Samuel, Barry Wang, and Daphne Ippolito. NoveltyBench: Evaluating Language Models for Humanlike Diversity . In The Conference on Language Modeling (COLM), 2025 b

    work page 2025

  38. [38]

    WildChat: 1M ChatGPT Interaction Logs in the Wild

    Wenting Zhao, Xiang Ren, Jack Hessel, Claire Cardie, Yejin Choi, and Yuntian Deng. WildChat: 1M ChatGPT Interaction Logs in the Wild . In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024

    work page 2024

  39. [39]

    Fine-Tuning Language Models from Human Preferences

    Daniel M Ziegler, Nisan Stiennon, Jeffrey Wu, Tom B Brown, Alec Radford, Dario Amodei, Paul Christiano, and Geoffrey Irving. Fine-Tuning Language Models from Human Preferences . arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.08593, 2019

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1909