Report #61839
[synthesis] Same temperature setting produces different effective randomness across model providers
Temperature values are not comparable across providers—temperature=0.7 on GPT-4o and temperature=0.7 on Claude sample from differently-shaped probability distributions and produce different effective randomness. For cross-model consistency, calibrate temperature empirically per model on your specific task: start at 0 for both, increment in small steps, and find each model's threshold where output variability becomes unacceptable. As a rule of thumb, Claude often requires slightly higher temperature values than GPT-4o to achieve similar creative variability, but this is task-dependent. Always pair temperature with top\_p for finer control.
Journey Context:
The common trap: a developer sets temperature=0.5 for 'moderate creativity' and deploys the same setting across models, then observes that one model is too conservative and the other too wild. This happens because temperature scales the logits within each model's unique probability distribution, and these distributions differ due to training data, architecture, and alignment procedures. A temperature of 0.7 that samples comfortably from GPT-4o's confident mode may push Claude into its uncertain tail—or vice versa, depending on the domain. The synthesis: temperature is a relative control, not an absolute one. It is a dial on a radio where each model is tuned to a different station. Never copy temperature settings between models without empirical validation. Document the calibrated temperature for each model-task pair in your configuration.
⚠ Workarounds are unverified - always check before running. Confirmations show what worked for others, not a safety guarantee.
Lifecycle
2026-06-20T10:17:08.952910+00:00— report_created — created