When a language model must choose one answer from a large space of equally valid options, a format clause --"Reply with JSON only"-- changes which answer it chooses, and structured output is how software consumes language models.
Abstract
When a language model must choose one answer from a large space of equally valid options, a format clause --"Reply with JSON only"-- changes which answer it chooses. We re-run the One-Word Census (arXiv:2607.12796): 31 wide-answer-space category prompts asked of 44 models, now with the reply requested in JSON -- no schema enforcement, no constrained decoding, only the request. Convergence deepens sharply: on the unconstrained"Pick a word"prompt the modal answer rises from 41% to 64% of the pool and distinct answers fall from 52 to 36; mean answer-choice surprisal drops from 1.80 to 1.58 bits. The tax is progressive: six of 44 models move individually (BH-FDR q=.10), all toward the mode, led by the most distinctive models, while the conformist floor is immobile. It is a sharpener, not a re-indexer -- the plain-chat modal answer survives in 28 of 31 categories. Defaults are register-indexed: a within-run re-sample (n=20) finds JSON shifts 53% of a model's stable chat defaults, mostly back to the crowd, and installs defaults absent from chat (Claude Fable 5 answers"cerulean"for colour 0% of the time in chat, 100% in JSON). Full-battery controls reveal a register gradient: compression is significant and specific to the answer-delivery formats models are trained to speak (JSON -0.22 bits, p=.0002; XML -0.19, p=.002), absent for YAML and CSV, and reversed for an arbitrary bracket wrapper (+0.13, p=.009) -- weighing the mechanism toward tool-use post-training. Enforcing the schema at the decoder (response_format) compresses no further than the request (-0.03 bits): the collapse lives in the model's response to the register, not the decoder. Structured output is how software consumes language models, and that surface is served by a measurably more homogeneous model than the chat surface on which models are evaluated, compared, and chosen.
When a language model must pick one answer from a large space of equally valid options, which does it pick -- and how often is it the same answer every other model picks? Asked to"pick a word -- any word,"44 models chose"serendipity"41% of the time. We characterize this convergence with a deliberately minimal instrument: 31 single-turn prompts, each naming a category with many valid one-word answers ("Name a tree."), asked four times per model with no system prompt. Analysis is exact-match on normalized tokens -- no embeddings, no judge -- at about a dollar per model. That models converge is well documented; our contribution is the instrument itself -- the One-Word Census -- and what it reveals about the structure of the convergence. We score each model by answer-choice surprisal: the average $-\log2$ probability of its answers under the pooled answers of all other models, leave-one-out. Convergence is extreme -- in 7 of 31 categories one answer takes over 80% of all answers -- yet conformity varies more than fourfold across models, and the variation is structured. Persona- and community-tuned models are the most divergent; the newest mainline flagships are the most conformist, producing almost no answer no other model gave. Within four lineages (Claude, GPT, Qwen, Grok) conformity rises with each generation -- but reverses for the latest flagship Claude and GPT models, a possible early signal of repositioning at the top tier. Rankings are robust to roster composition (leave-one-family-out rho = 0.985). Against human category-production norms, the field is more concentrated than people in 18 of 20 shared categories. All prompts, transcripts, and code are public.
Appending a two-word confirmation tag to a decision question --"Is X the better choice?"versus"X is the better choice, right?"-- changes whether a language model endorses the choice. We measure this tag effect on 20 frozen, ground-truth-free decisions between two defensible options, counterbalanced so a model's own preferences cancel, scored by exact match on clamped yes/no replies -- no LLM judge, no embeddings. Across 45 models the effect spans +32% to -32% -- a 64-point swing on one word -- with 5 models significantly sycophantic and 17 significantly resistant (BH-FDR q=.10). The sign is a clock: within model families the effect crosses from positive to negative as generations advance (GPT +4 to -28; Claude +7 to -32; Qwen and Grok likewise), roughly -6 points per year, a reversal robust to vendor tier; one lineage (DeepSeek) never crosses, and two releases during the study window (Claude Opus 5, Gemini 3.6 Flash) land on the trend out-of-sample. A full-panel ablation localizes the resistance as a double dissociation: a synonym tag reproduces each model's response almost exactly (r=0.89), while planting the same preference without a tag produces resistance in no resistant model (stance effects +6 to +49; r=0.23 with tag effects). The resistance is keyed to the surface construction of a tacked-on agreement bid, not the user's stance -- a pattern-match, not a principle. And the tag's polarity matters more than its presence: swap one word --"X is the better choice, maybe?"-- and agreement rises above the neutral baseline in 45 of 45 models (+19.6 points), with ten models affirming both mutually exclusive options at 90-100%. Agreement tracks how sure the user sounds, in opposite directions at the two poles. The instrument is one word, one dollar, and judge-free; run per release, it reads the field's anti-sycophancy training directly off model behavior.
For applications that require per-persona outputs, the same model that cannot sample from a distribution can describe it accurately in a single call, and is proposed Prompt-Perturbed Argyle (PPA), which reduces the same error by 21% at no added cost.
As large language models enter everyday information pipelines, understanding how they handle sensitive topics matters as much as understanding whether they handle them at all. We study this question through a large-scale, systematic experiment using restricted versus unrestricted books as a controlled testbed: 40,800 query-response pairs, 400 books, 17 prompt designs, and six frontier models spanning six AI providers (Claude Sonnet 4.5, GPT-4o, Gemini 2.5 Flash, DeepSeek-V3, Qwen-Plus, and Grok-4.1-Fast). Our restricted set is drawn from the American Library Association's Most Challenged Books records (2000-2023); we use restricted rather than banned throughout because the ALA documents formal challenges-requests to remove or restrict access-which do not always result in outright bans. Our central finding is a zero-refusal phenomenon: modern LLMs decline to discuss restricted books in only 0.07% of cases, effectively invalidating the premise of jailbreaking research for this content class. Differentiation occurs instead through warning language (+8-15 percentage points, p<0.001) and hesitation markers (+2-5 pp), with sexual content mention rate as the strongest individual signal (+33-52 pp). We further identify systematic differences between providers and show that prompt framing alone shifts the warning-rate gap by up to 19 pp. These results indicate that LLM content policy has shifted from binary refusal toward calibrated, context-sensitive disclosure-a finding that holds consistently across Western and Chinese AI providers.
Xuchen Yu, Emily J. M. Knox, Haohan Wang· 0 citations
A crossed random-effects (generalizability-theory) decomposition is specified that partitions the total variance of a response-level brand outcome into these four sources, and embeds the components in a decision-study allocation that returns how many repeats, paraphrases, models, and languages to buy for a target reliability.
Multilingual evaluations report accuracy at a single output-token cap, but languages need different numbers of tokens to express the same content, so the cap is a hidden experimental variable. We test whether the native-vs-translate gap on MGSM (German, Thai, Swahili) is a token-budget artifact for Qwen3-8B and Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct under four prompting strategies. The measured gap swings by up to 57 points across budgets, length normalization moves it by up to 38.9 points where the cap binds, and at tight caps normalization can reverse which strategy scores higher. We prospectively froze the sweep's three Qwen peaks and its near-zero value at 1024 and evaluated them on 540,000 independently hard-capped decodes: a second frozen family of six Holm-corrected tests rejects every null. The frozen test at $B^*=1024$ still fails to reject because native accuracy has already saturated there; above saturation, the residual difference is a strategy-performance gap, not an identified reasoning deficit. The same truncation channel prices a cost-ordered adaptation ladder: a cross-fitted Thai vocabulary extension closes 0.0 points of the gap at the frozen budget and 4.9 points where 19% of traces still truncate. A third frozen family varies only the announced budget at a fixed enforced cap; announcing 128 rather than 2048 tokens moves Thai native accuracy by 5.1 points, so accuracy is not a function of the enforced cap alone. A correct-emission timing identity computed from one long-cap run matches the three pre-specified MGSM peaks to 0.65 points and, in an exploratory Qwen-only analysis of three further benchmarks, tracks held-out items to 0.92 points, locating the peak exactly in five of seven cells. Treat the output cap as an independent variable and report accuracy across the budget regime, not at a single budget.