The main issue of the previous approach is that some tokens are sampled more often than others, even in the case our prior for the logit vector is uniform over \([-B,0]\). This is because the "centering of the hyperrectangle" logit bias does not partition the hyperrectangle into equally-sized parts labeled by the argmax coordinate. For example, if \(\beta_{i}-\alpha_{i}\ll\beta_{j}-\alpha_{j}\), under an uniform prior over \([\alpha_{i},\beta_{i}]\times[\alpha_{j},\beta_{j}]\), \(j\) will be much more likely to be the output token than \(i\). Hence, in Algorithm 3 we rarely get constraints lower-bounding \(\mathsf{logit}_{i}\) in terms of other logits, which makes for weaker relaxations of \(\mathcal{C}\).