Recovering Diversity Without Losing Alignment: A DPO Recipe for Post-Trained LLMs

Post-training alignment often reduces LLM diversity, leading to a phenomenon known as mode collapse. Unlike prior work that attributes this effect to algorithmic limitations, we identify a fundamental, pervasive data-level driver: typicality bias in preference data, whereby annotators systematically favor familiar text as a result of well-established findings in cognitive psychology. We formalize this bias theoretically, verify it on preference datasets empirically, and show that it plays a central role in mode collapse. Motivated by this analysis, we introduce Verbalized Sampling, a simple, training-free prompting strategy to circumvent mode collapse. VS prompts the model to verbalize a probability distribution over a set of responses (e.g., "Generate 5 jokes about coffee and their corresponding probabilities"). Comprehensive experiments show that VS significantly improves performance across creative writing (poems, stories, jokes), dialogue simulation, open-ended QA, and synthetic data generation, without sacrificing factual accuracy and safety. For instance, in creative writing, VS increases diversity by 1.6-2.1x over direct prompting. We further observe an emergent trend that more capable models benefit more from VS. In sum, our work provides a new data-centric perspective on mode collapse and a practical inference-time remedy that helps unlock pre-trained generative diversity.

A notable byproduct of LLM alignment training is mode collapse: the progressive loss of output diversity that narrows a model's expressivity at inference time. This degradation is especially limiting for applications requiring open-ended exploration and pluralistic perspectives, such as scientific ideation and creative writing. We present MoDA (Mode-conditioned Diversity Alignment), an online post-training RL algorithm that jointly optimizes generation quality and diversity, inspired by the coordination perspective in multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL). MoDA trains a single shared LLM policy conditioned on abstract numbered roles, where each role acts as an agent competing to produce outputs distinct from the others. This formulation encourages mode-conditioned agents to explore complementary regions of the high-quality output space without requiring hand-crafted personas or architectural modifications. MoDA employs a prompt-adaptive quality gating mechanism that calibrates a reference quality threshold and grants diversity rewards only to responses that meet the threshold, preventing reward-hacking behaviors that compromise response quality. To study quality-diversity tradeoffs, we evaluate MoDA on a comprehensive suite of benchmarks spanning seven general capability tasks and four domain-specific diversity tasks in scientific ideation and creative writing. MoDA improves SBERT diversity by 265% on the Infinite-Chat held-out prompts, while increasing average general capability pass@1 by 10.3% over the Qwen3-8B baseline. Compared with the strongest DivPO baseline, MoDA improves SBERT diversity from 0.274 to 0.482 (+75.9%) and E-Vendi from 2.86 to 4.4 (+53.8%), while improving average general capability pass@1 by 7.0%. Overall, MoDA provides a drop-in alternative to standard post-training methods that preserves and expands the model's expressive output space while improving quality.

Post-trained language models produce less varied outputs than their base counterparts. This output diversity collapse undermines inference-time scaling methods that rely on varied samples, and risks homogenizing model outputs on creative and value-laden tasks. Prior work attributes collapse to specific post-training methods, without separating the role of training data composition from the method, or the generation format from the model weights. We trace output diversity through three parallel post-training lineages of Olmo 3, Think (chain-of-thought distillation), Instruct (broad multi-source data), and RL-Zero, across 15 tasks and four text diversity metrics. We find that the location of collapse co-varies with data composition: the Think lineage loses most semantic diversity at supervised fine-tuning, and the effect of DPO is larger in Instruct than in Think. Suppressing chain-of-thought reasoning at inference in Think models drops accuracy on hard tasks, yet leaves answer-level diversity unchanged, showing that the collapse is embedded in the model weights by training data, not imposed by the generation format. Decomposing diversity loss on six verifiable tasks into a quality-control component (removal of incorrect outputs) and a residual component (genuine narrowing among correct outputs) reveals that the split is task-dependent, and Think models retain more correct-answer diversity than Instruct despite collapsing more in aggregate. Our results indicate that diversity collapse is determined during training by data composition and cannot be addressed at inference time alone.