cs.LGJul 9, 2026

Gauge dependence and structured-output corruption in sign-branched repetition penalties: measurements across models, inference stacks, and alternative repetition controls

Authors: Peter Hollows

Abstract

The multiplicative repetition penalty shipped across the LLM inference ecosystem (HuggingFace, vLLM, llama..cpp, and a dozen further engines) branches on the sign of each raw logit (divide positives by theta, multiply negatives). But the softmax is unchanged by adding a constant to every logit, so a model's logit zero-point is arbitrary (a gauge choice), and the sign-branch reads it. Two measurable consequences follow. (1) The penalty is not well-defined: re-centering a model's logits by a constant is a provable no-op at theta=1, yet at a routine theta=1.3 it changes 58-96% of greedy tokens, while subtractive and normalized penalties change none; real checkpoints sit at widely different zero-points, so a fixed repetition_penalty is a different operation on every model. (2) It corrupts structured output: on 200 real-world JSON schemas, theta=1.3 drops the rate of valid, schema-conformant output from 97% to 23%. Applying the penalty to normalized log-probabilities instead of raw logits removes the gauge dependence by construction; HuggingFace's beam search has applied its processor chain, penalty included, to log-probabilities since at least v4.0.0, so repetition_penalty already names two different operators depending on decoding strategy. Because equal theta is not equal strength across the two operators, we also compare them at matched suppression, calibrated per model by search: there the normalized operator is statistically no worse on any quality metric measured, but on four of seven models it cannot match the raw operator's suppression at theta >= 1.15, and on six of seven at theta=1.3, the setting where the corruption was measured. This note gives the mechanism, the measurements (five models up to 7B; two code models; both effects replicated inside vLLM and llama..cpp through their own samplers), the per-model calibration map, and the normalized variant.

Explore similar work

CardsList
Jun 8, 2026cs.AI

Capacity, Not Format: Rethinking Structured Reasoning Failures

Prior work treats structured output as a reasoning tax, but this framing is incomplete: the cost of formatting depends strongly on a model's spare capacity. Using information-matched prose controls and a four-level schema complexity gradient, we separate format-specific effects from prompt-length confounds across 4 models and 5 benchmarks with 0% parse failures on successfully generated responses. We find that structured formats are capacity-dependent. Models with sufficient headroom absorb JSON constraints without degradation (Sonnet: 88.7±4.088.7\pm4.0% JSON vs. 89.3±1.789.3\pm1.7% CoT on MATH-Hard). In contrast, formats severely degrade models operating near their limits through two distinct mechanisms. First, under standard token budgets, Haiku drops 36.2pp (p<0.0001p < 0.0001) largely due to truncation. Second, even with extended budgets eliminating truncation, GPT-4o-mini drops 28.0pp (p<0.001p < 0.001), revealing pure capacity competition independent of token exhaustion. This format penalty scales with schema complexity (McNemar p<0.0001p < 0.0001) and cannot be explained by prompt length alone. Furthermore, these results qualify claims of frontier model immunity: on AIME competition math, Opus 4.7 drops from 96.2% to 91.0% under JSON (−5.3-5.3pp; the displayed percentages are independently rounded, exact difference is 7/133=5.267/133 = 5.26pp ≈5.3\approx 5.3pp). A delayed-structure ablation -- reasoning freely before formatting -- recovers most of the lost accuracy (3-run mean: 80--87%), supporting the capacity competition mechanism. The practical implication is not to avoid structured output, but to match it to capacity: when a model is near its limits, think first, format later.
Hengxin Fan
CapacityFrontier ModelsLatent Confounders
AskPDF
May 4, 2026cs.CL

When Correct Isn't Usable: Improving Structured Output Reliability in Small Language Models

Deployed language models must produce outputs that are both correct and format-compliant. We study this structured-output reliability gap using two mathematical benchmarks -- GSM8K and MATH -- as a controlled testbed: ground truth is unambiguous and the output contract is strict (JSON with required fields). We evaluate three 7-9B models under five prompting strategies and report output accuracy -- the joint event of mathematical correctness and valid JSON structure -- as the primary metric. A systematic format failure emerges: NAIVE prompting (no system prompt) achieves up to 85% task accuracy on GSM8K but 0% output accuracy across all models and datasets. REFERENCE prompting (a minimal hand-written JSON format prompt) fares little better, yielding 0% output accuracy for two of four models tested. Constrained decoding enforces syntactic validity but incurs 3.6x-8.2x latency overhead and in several settings degrades task performance substantially. To overcome this limitation, we developed AloLab, an iterative system-prompt optimizer (meta-agent: Claude Sonnet 4.5) requiring only black-box API access to the target model; it reaches 84-87% output accuracy on GSM8K and 34-40% on MATH across five independent runs per model, with 29/30 paired McNemar comparisons against the best static prompt significant at p < 0.05, at near-NAIVE inference latency and without model fine-tuning. The same format failure extends to GPT-4o (OpenAI, 2024), a proprietary closed-source model: REFERENCE achieves 0% output accuracy due to systematic markdown-fence wrapping, while AloLab reaches 95.2% [94.8, 95.6]. An ablation replacing the Sonnet 4.5 meta-agent with Claude 3 Haiku reduces mean output accuracy to 61.0% and increases run-to-run standard deviation from <1 pp to 21.8 pp, confirming that meta-agent capability is a primary driver of optimization quality.
Cosimo Galeone, Minsu Park, Giuseppe Ettorre +1
CorrectnessReliability
AskPDF
Jul 20, 2026cs.CL

Structured Output Collapses Answer Diversity Across 44 Language Models

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.
Tapan Parikh
Large Language Model ResponsesChatbotsConstrained Decoding StrategiesOutput and Model DiversitySurprisal
AskPDF