PreprintCited by 5Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing TechniquesAdversarial Robustness in Machine Learning

The Price of Format: Diversity Collapse in LLMs

Open access
Yun, Longfei, An, Chenyang, Wang, Zilong, Peng, Letian, Shang, Jingbo·2025·arXiv

Abstract

Instruction-tuned large language models (LLMs) employ structured templates, such as role markers and special tokens, to enforce format consistency during inference. However, we identify a critical limitation of such formatting: it induces a phenomenon we term diversity collapse, where the model generates semantically similar outputs for open-ended inputs, undermining creativity and variability. We systematically evaluate this effect across tasks like story completion and free-form generation, finding that (1) diversity collapse persists even under high-temperature sampling, and (2) structural tokens in templates significantly constrain the model's output space. To contextualize these findings, we fine-tune the same model using a range of structured prompts and then evaluate them across three axes: downstream task performance, alignment behavior, and output diversity. Our analysis shows that format consistency between fine-tuning and inference is crucial for structure-sensitive tasks (e.g., GSM8K, IFEval), but has marginal influence on knowledge-heavy tasks (e.g., MMLU, WebQuestions). In contrast, output diversity is primarily governed by the presence or absence of structural tokens, with minimal formatting yielding the most diverse outputs. These findings reveal that current prompting conventions, while beneficial for alignment, may inadvertently suppress output diversity, underscoring the need for diversity-aware prompt design and instruction tuning.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2505.18949

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 35

  1. Marah Abdin, Jyoti Aneja, Hany Awadalla, Ahmed Awadallah, Ammar Ahmad Awan, Nguyen Bach, Amit Bahree, Arash Bakhtiari, Jianmin Bao, Harkirat Behl, et al. 2024. Phi-3 technical report: A highly ca- pable language model locally on your phone. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.14219. · arXiv
  2. Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Florencia Leoni Aleman, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, et al. 2023. Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774. · arXiv
  3. Rohan Anil et al. 2023. Gemini: A family of highly capable multimodal models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11805. · arXiv
  4. Yuntao Bai, Saurav Kadavath, Sandipan Kundu, Amanda Askell, Jackson Kernion, Andy Jones, Anna Chen, Anna Goldie, Azalia Mirhoseini, Cameron McKinnon, et al. 2022. Constitutional ai: Harmlessness from ai feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.08073. · arXiv
  5. Jonathan Berant, Andrew Chou, Roy Frostig, and Percy Liang. 2013. Semantic parsing on Freebase from question-answer pairs. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Lan- guage Processing, pages 1533-1544, Seattle, Wash- ington, USA. Association for Computational Linguis- tics.
  6. Hao Chen, Wenxin Li, Rui Zhao, and Yu Zhou. 2024. On the diversity of synthetic data and its impact on training large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.15226. · arXiv
  7. Mark Chen, Jerry Tworek, Heewoo Jun, Qiming Yuan, Henrique Ponde De Oliveira Pinto, Jared Ka- plan, Harri Edwards, Yuri Burda, Nicholas Joseph, Greg Brockman, et al. 2021. Evaluating large language models trained on code. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03374. · arXiv
  8. Karl Cobbe, Vineet Kosaraju, Mohammad Bavarian, Mark Chen, Heewoo Jun, Lukasz Kaiser, Matthias Plappert, Jerry Tworek, Jacob Hilton, Reiichiro Nakano, et al. 2021. Training verifiers to solve math word problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168. · arXiv
  9. Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al-Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schelten, Amy Yang, Angela Fan, et al. 2024. The llama 3 herd of models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783. · arXiv
  10. Yann Dubois, Balázs Galambosi, Percy Liang, and Tat- sunori B Hashimoto. 2024. Length-controlled al- pacaeval: A simple way to debias automatic evalua- tors. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.04475. · arXiv
  11. Angela Fan, Yacine Jernite, Ethan Perez, David Grang- ier, Jason Weston, and Michael Auli. 2019. ELI5: Long form question answering. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Com- putational Linguistics, pages 3558-3567, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  12. Angela Fan, Mike Lewis, and Yann Dauphin. 2018. Hierarchical Neural Story Generation. Preprint, arXiv:1805.04833. · arXiv
  13. Tao Ge, Xin Chan, Xiaoyang Wang, Dian Yu, Haitao Mi, and Dong Yu. 2024. Scaling synthetic data cre- ation with 1,000,000,000 personas. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.20094. · arXiv
  14. Aaron Grattafiori, Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al- Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schelten, Alex Vaughan, et al. 2024. The llama 3 herd of mod- els. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783. · arXiv
  15. Seungju Han, Beomsu Kim, and Buru Chang. 2022. Measuring and improving semantic diversity of di- alogue generation. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022, pages 934-950, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Associ- ation for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  16. Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Steven Basart, Andy Zou, Mantas Mazeika, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. 2020. Measuring massive multitask language under- standing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.03300. · arXiv
  17. Fengqing Jiang. 2024. Identifying and mitigating vul- nerabilities in llm-integrated applications. Master's thesis, University of Washington.
  18. Jiyeon Kim, Hyunji Lee, Hyowon Cho, Joel Jang, Hyeonbin Hwang, Seungpil Won, Youbin Ahn, Do- haeng Lee, and Minjoon Seo. 2024. Knowledge entropy decay during language model pretraining hinders new knowledge acquisition. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.01380. · arXiv
  19. Robert Kirk, Ishita Mediratta, Christoforos Nalmpantis, Jelena Luketina, Eric Hambro, Edward Grefenstette, and Roberta Raileanu. 2023. Understanding the ef- fects of rlhf on llm generalisation and diversity. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06452. · arXiv
  20. Tom Kwiatkowski, Jennimaria Palomaki, Olivia Red- field, Michael Collins, Ankur Parikh, Chris Alberti, Danielle Epstein, Illia Polosukhin, Jacob Devlin, Ken- ton Lee, et al. 2019. Natural questions: a benchmark for question answering research. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 7:453- 466.
  21. Nathan Lambert, Valentina Pyatkin, Jacob Morrison, LJ Miranda, Bill Yuchen Lin, Khyathi Chandu, Nouha Dziri, Sachin Kumar, Tom Zick, Yejin Choi, et al. 2024b. Rewardbench: Evaluating reward models for language modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.13787. · arXiv
  22. Hector Levesque, Ernest Davis, and Leora Morgenstern. 2012. The winograd schema challenge. In Thir- teenth International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. Citeseer.
  23. Ziniu Li, Congliang Chen, Tian Xu, Zeyu Qin, Jiancong Xiao, Ruoyu Sun, and Zhi-Quan Luo. 2024. Entropic distribution matching in supervised fine-tuning of llms: Less overfitting and better diversity. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.16673. · arXiv
  24. R Thomas McCoy, Shunyu Yao, Dan Friedman, Matthew Hardy, and Thomas L Griffiths. 2023. Em- bers of autoregression: Understanding large language models through the problem they are trained to solve. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.13638. · arXiv
  25. Nasrin Mostafazadeh, Nathanael Chambers, Xiaodong He, Devi Parikh, Dhruv Batra, Lucy Vanderwende, Pushmeet Kohli, and James Allen. 2016. A cor- pus and evaluation framework for deeper under- standing of commonsense stories. arXiv preprint arXiv:1604.01696. · arXiv
  26. Nasrin Mostafazadeh, Michael Roth, Annie Louis, Nathanael Chambers, and James Allen. 2017. LS- DSem 2017 shared task: The story cloze test. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Linking Models of Lexical, Sentential and Discourse-level Seman- tics, pages 46-51, Valencia, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  27. Laura O'Mahony, Leo Grinsztajn, Hailey Schoelkopf, and Stella Biderman. 2024. Attributing mode col- lapse in the fine-tuning of large language models. In ICLR 2024 Workshop on Mathematical and Empiri- cal Understanding of Foundation Models.
  28. Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, et al. 2022. Training language models to follow instruc- tions with human feedback. Advances in neural in- formation processing systems, 35:27730-27744.
  29. Yiwei Qin, Kaiqiang Song, Yebowen Hu, Wenlin Yao, Sangwoo Cho, Xiaoyang Wang, Xuansheng Wu, Fei Liu, Pengfei Liu, and Dong Yu. 2024. Infobench: Evaluating instruction following ability in large lan- guage models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.03601. · arXiv
  30. Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. 2020. Making monolingual sentence embeddings multilingual us- ing knowledge distillation. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  31. Guy Tevet and Jonathan Berant. 2021. Evaluating the evaluation of diversity in natural language generation. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the Euro- pean Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 326-346, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  32. Miles Turpin, Julian Michael, Ethan Perez, and Samuel Bowman. 2023. Language models don't always say what they think: Unfaithful explanations in chain-of- thought prompting. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:74952-74965.
  33. Congying Xia, Chen Xing, Jiangshu Du, Xinyi Yang, Yihao Feng, Ran Xu, Wenpeng Yin, and Caim- ing Xiong. 2024. Fofo: A benchmark to evaluate llms' format-following capability. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.18667. · arXiv
  34. Longfei Yun, Letian Peng, and Jingbo Shang. 2025. Ul- tragen: Extremely fine-grained controllable genera- tion via attribute reconstruction and global preference optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.12375. · arXiv
  35. Jeffrey Zhou, Tianjian Lu, Swaroop Mishra, Sid- dhartha Brahma, Sujoy Basu, Yi Luan, Denny Zhou, and Le Hou. 2023. Instruction-following evalu- ation for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.07911. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yun, L., An, C., Wang, Z., Peng, L., & Shang, J.
Affiliations
University of California San Diego (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
Pages
15454-15468
OpenAlex
W4416034190
Cited by
5
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 1
FWCI
4.74
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
Keywords
large language models, output diversity, prompt templates, instruction tuning, prompt engineering, story completion, high-temperature sampling, fine-tuning

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review