← 研踪 PaperTrailarXiv:2611.01284 · v1
Character-Name Concentration in LLM Fiction: Measuring Displacement and Mitigating Repetition
首次提交 2026-11-01 05:36
版本更新 2026-11-01 05:36
雷达观测 2026-11-04 23:43
摘要
Character names in large language model (LLM) fiction concentrate on a handful of recurrent names such as 'Elara' and 'Elias', a measurable face of AI slop. Existing fixes either require logit access or retraining, or operate per request and cannot control concentration across a corpus. How much prompt-level strategies reduce concentration, and at what cost to name naturalness, has not been systematically measured. We present an empirical study of name-concentration control across eight strategies and introduce speculative naming, a fine-tuning-free method that adapts the draft-verify-reject paradigm of speculative decoding from tokens to names. The method requests candidate name-sets through verbalized sampling, scores them against a SlopTracker that combines a per-model fingerprint with a runtime counter, and selects through a temperature-controlled rule or its strict variant (HARD). We use 20 LLMs to generate 44,782 stories in four languages from text and visual stimuli (88,919 named characters), and measure concentration with a list-free collision metric (Slop Ratio, SR) decomposed into known and emergent components. List-based strategies do not remove slop: static banlists displace concentration to emergent names and more than halve the share of attested real names. Speculative naming removes it: the sampling scaffold alone cuts SR by 89% on average, the dynamic tracker brings the total reduction to 95%, mean collision probability falls from 7.3% to 0.4%, and known-name collisions hold at zero while naturalness stays close to baseline (42-69% attested by language) and within-story collisions drop from 4.3% to 0.2%. The strategy ranking is stable across languages, model families, and name-counting conventions. Name concentration is thus controllable at the corpus level without logit access or retraining; broader creative diversity beyond naming remains open.
观测到的版本
相邻记录可能跳过中间版本；首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。
v1 · 2026-11-01 05:36 · 最新观测版本
Character-Name Concentration in LLM Fiction: Measuring Displacement and Mitigating Repetition
Character names in large language model (LLM) fiction concentrate on a handful of recurrent names such as 'Elara' and 'Elias', a measurable face of AI slop. Existing fixes either require logit access or retraining, or operate per request and cannot control concentration across a corpus. How much prompt-level strategies reduce concentration, and at what cost to name naturalness, has not been systematically measured. We present an empirical study of name-concentration control across eight strategies and introduce speculative naming, a fine-tuning-free method that adapts the draft-verify-reject paradigm of speculative decoding from tokens to names. The method requests candidate name-sets through verbalized sampling, scores them against a SlopTracker that combines a per-model fingerprint with a runtime counter, and selects through a temperature-controlled rule or its strict variant (HARD). We use 20 LLMs to generate 44,782 stories in four languages from text and visual stimuli (88,919 named characters), and measure concentration with a list-free collision metric (Slop Ratio, SR) decomposed into known and emergent components. List-based strategies do not remove slop: static banlists displace concentration to emergent names and more than halve the share of attested real names. Speculative naming removes it: the sampling scaffold alone cuts SR by 89% on average, the dynamic tracker brings the total reduction to 95%, mean collision probability falls from 7.3% to 0.4%, and known-name collisions hold at zero while naturalness stays close to baseline (42-69% attested by language) and within-story collisions drop from 4.3% to 0.2%. The strategy ranking is stable across languages, model families, and name-counting conventions. Name concentration is thus controllable at the corpus level without logit access or retraining; broader creative diversity beyond naming remains open.
查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗