Papers › Intent Factored Generation: Unleashing the Diversity in Your Language Model
Intent Factored Generation: Unleashing the Diversity in Your Language Model
Eltayeb Ahmed, Uljad Berdica, Martha Elliott, Danijela Horak, Jakob N. Foerster
Obtaining multiple meaningfully diverse, high quality samples from Large Language Models for a fixed prompt remains an open challenge. Current methods for increasing diversity often only operate at the token-level, paraphrasing the same response. This is problematic because it leads to poor exploration on reasoning problems and to unengaging, repetitive conversational agents. To address this we propose Intent Factored Generation (IFG), factorising the sampling process into two stages. First, we sample a semantically dense intent, e.g., a summary or keywords. Second, we sample the final response conditioning on both the original prompt and the intent from the first stage. This allows us to use a higher temperature during the intent step to promote conceptual diversity, and a lower temperature during the final generation to ensure the outputs are coherent and self-consistent. Additionally, we find that prompting the model to explicitly state its intent for each step of the chain-of-thought before generating the step is beneficial for reasoning tasks. We demonstrate our method's effectiveness across a diverse set of tasks. We show this method improves both pass@k and Reinforcement Learning from Verifier Feedback on maths and code tasks. For instruction-tuning, we combine IFG with Direct Preference Optimisation to increase conversational diversity without sacrificing reward. Finally, we achieve higher diversity while maintaining the quality of generations on a general language modelling task, using a new dataset of reader comments and news articles that we collect and open-source. In summary, we present a simple method of increasing the sample diversity of LLMs while maintaining performance. This method can be implemented by changing the prompt and varying the temperature during generation, making it easy to integrate into many algorithms for gains across various applications.
In Syntology View this paper on Syntology: its repositories, every harvested function with whether it ran, its licence and the call to fetch it.
Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2506.09659")
Code
Syntology Ran 0 of 12 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 12 have no recorded run.
By repository: official repository: 12 samples from 1 repository, 0 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
12 samples harvested; 0 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 12 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-25; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.
Licence: 0 of the 12 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.
Harvested from flairox/ifg. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.
Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.
Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.
e6b10b3a46a1e73c · report
25929c22eda9938b · report
b881ac314109956a · report
e213f105ef5bfbfa · report
606bde9343246a50 · report
79035c5cd6888332 · report
b99c690a18bac742 · report
adc1130833a4f725 · report
e15df122cc85e5a6 · report
1ab57d52c0087750 · report
90f8729aba04c979 · report
196f3f69c8d074dd · report
Tasks
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Methods
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections