Training Autoregressive Language Models on Rounded, Bounded, and Censored Numerical Labels via Exact Likelihood
Organizations: University of Texas at Arlington
Abstract
Numerical labels often specify a set of possible values: a measurement is rounded, a laboratory test reports only a bound, or a program is stopped at a timeout. We introduce boundary marginalization, the first method that trains an autoregressive language model on the exact likelihood of such observations through its existing digit tokens. A fixed-width, order-preserving numeral representation groups consecutive grid values under shared digit prefixes. An interval is a union of such groups, so its exact probability and gradient follow from at most two boundary paths, the successive digit prefixes of its endpoints, each of length logarithmic in the number of grid values. The resulting objective unifies precise, rounded, bounded, and censored supervision and trains digit decisions at the resolution supplied by each observation. The same computation supports exact distributional queries and unbiased gradients for the continuous ranked probability score on exact labels. Experiments show recovery of a conditional distribution from rounded and censored reports alone, improved likelihood on naturally censored molecular measurements, and more accurate code latency distributions on two backbones. Exact interval updates remain tractable as the numerical support grows to one million values.
Figures & tables
| Observation | Numerical event | Compatible grid indices | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exact grid label | |||
| Closed interval | |||
| Rounded to width | |||
| Strict lower bound | |||
| Strict upper bound | |||
| hERG: natural reports | KBSS: exact test outcomes | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Method | Full NLL | Equality NLL | CRPS ( ms) | CRPS ( ms) |
| Event likelihood (ours) | ||||
| Complete-case CE | ||||
| Imputed-label CE | ||||
| Event-aware mixture | ||||
| Event-aware histogram | ||||
| Method | CRPS ( ms) | CRPS ( ms) | Budget Brier |
|---|---|---|---|
| Event likelihood (ours) | |||
| Complete-case CE | |||
| Event-aware histogram |
Appendix figures & tables15 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Verification quantity | Maximum absolute discrepancy |
|---|---|
| CDF versus enumeration | |
| Interval log probability versus enumeration | |
| Event gradient versus enumeration | |
| Event gradient versus finite differences | |
| CRPS objective versus threshold expectation | |
| CRPS gradient versus threshold expectation |
| Dataset | Split | Exact | Rounded | Left bounds | Right bounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Controlled ( ) | Train | 0 | 3,916 | 2,091 | 1,993 |
| Validation | 0 | 514 | 250 | 236 | |
| Test | 0 | 999 | 519 | 482 | |
| Controlled ( ) | Train | 853 | 3,482 | 1,877 | 1,788 |
| Validation | 98 | 470 | 226 | 206 | |
| Test | 183 | 906 | 462 | 449 |
| Method | Supervision and role |
|---|---|
| Event likelihood (ours) | Exact probability of each observed interval through the numerical decoder. |
| Complete-case CE | Same decoder trained only on precise observations. |
| Imputed-label CE | Same decoder trained on midpoint representatives for bounded intervals and admissible representatives adjacent to the bounds for censored labels. |
| Event-aware mixture head | Five-component Gaussian mixture on the declared target scale, trained on the same event likelihood using the same backbone. |
| Event-aware histogram head | Fixed 256-bin head using the same backbone and evidence. The cost study also includes a separate dense output with one probability per grid value. |
| Study | Backbone | Fits | Max updates | Validation selection |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Controlled incomplete labels | Qwen2.5 | 64 | 750 | Event NLL |
| hERG | Qwen2.5 | 15 | 1,116 | Event NLL |
| KBSS | Qwen2.5 | 15 | 558 | Event NLL |
| KBSS transfer | Qwen3 | 9 | 558 | Event NLL |
| Exact-label scores | Qwen2.5 | 9 | 2,250 | CRPS |
| Method | ISE ( ) | Event NLL | CRPS | Point NLL | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | Event likelihood (ours) | ||||
| 0 | Imputed-label CE | ||||
| 0 | Event-aware mixture | ||||
| 0 | Event-aware histogram | ||||
| 0.1 | Event likelihood (ours) | ||||
| 0.1 | Complete-case CE |
| Method ( ) | Seeds | ISE ( ) | Event NLL |
|---|---|---|---|
| Event likelihood (ours) | 5 | ||
| Complete-case CE | 5 |
| Method | Censored NLL | Left-bound NLL | Right-bound NLL | Equality CRPS | Equality median MAE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Event likelihood (ours) | |||||
| Complete-case CE | |||||
| Imputed-label CE | |||||
| Event-aware mixture | |||||
| Event-aware histogram |
| Method | Budget Brier | Median MAE ( ms) | Median MAE ( ms) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Event likelihood (ours) | |||
| Complete-case CE | |||
| Imputed-label CE | |||
| Event-aware mixture | |||
| Event-aware histogram |
| Method | Median MAE ( ms) | Median MAE ( ms) |
|---|---|---|
| Event likelihood (ours) | ||
| Complete-case CE | ||
| Event-aware histogram |
| Training objective | Test CRPS | ISE ( ) | Point NLL |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sequence CE | |||
| Threshold CRPS | |||
| Threshold CDF-BCE |
| 256 prompt tokens | 1,024 prompt tokens | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Method | Update (s) | GiB | CE | Update (s) | GiB | CE | |
| Event likelihood | 2 | 0.888158 | 11.224 | 1.075 | 2.114650 | 27.458 | 1.458 |
| Event likelihood | 4 | 0.873143 | 11.245 | 1.071 | 2.143870 | 27.071 | 1.472 |
| Event likelihood | 6 | 0.872044 | 11.343 | 1.098 | 2.102270 | 27.008 | 1.446 |
| Imputed-label CE | 2 | 0.826942 | 7.235 | 1.000 | 1.450010 | 19.034 | 1.000 |
| Imputed-label CE | 4 | 0.816379 | 7.245 | 1.000 | 1.456340 | 19.064 | 1.000 |
Autoregressive Language Modeling
Autoregressive language modeling predicts sequences one step at a time, using prior tokens to generate text, speech, code, and other data.
See all 137 papers