I spent a couple years building a high performance, expressive library for structured outputs in LLMs. Our library is used by OpenAI for structured outputs on the hosted API. Happy to answer questions on how this works:
TL;DR instead of just getting a token and seeing if it would be accepted by the parser, you can actually zero-out probabilities for all invalid tokens, and do the computation for this in parallel at effectively zero cost:
> Here, compute_mask() can run on the CPU during the time it would be normally just waiting for the GPU to finish. The line prob[~mask] = 0.0 would normally be fused into the softmax kernel in the last stage of the LLM, with negligible overhead. Therefore, as long as the compute_mask() function completes faster than the LLM forward pass and parser.consume() is negligible (typically follows from compute_mask() speed), the constrained generation will be as fast as the unconstrained one.
I'm curious - have there been any research/conversations about pushing masking even earlier in the pipeline? In theory, there's a fair amount of compute that goes into computing the probability of tokens that will end up being masked away anyways.
Well, thank you for that; from a quick skim of Guidance, it looks like it is used when interfacing with the model directly - i.e. if I want to use Guidance I can't simply send input to my local Ollama instance, I have to stand up a small Python program that loads the model, accepts input from the user, push the user input tokens into the model, and for each output token, reject it if it fails some criteria.
Is this correct? If so, it means that the current way LLMs are interfaced with (via stdin/stout or an HTTP endpoint) can't be used with something like Guidance, correct?
"The constraint system offered by Guidance is extremely powerful. It can ensure that the output conforms to any context free grammar (so long as the backend LLM has full support for Guidance). More on this below." --from https://github.com/guidance-ai/guidance/
I didn't find any more on that comment below. Is there a list of supported LLMs?
I'm trying to write a really large book. I have a lot of material that I'm using RAG to help manage. I put into my prompts the top RAG cosine scores with some summaries of characters and previous chapters and scene sketches. I get scenes out and then work them over. LLMs are really helpful for my disability and have allowed me to make any progress at all on this.
Is your thing something I should look into for helping keep track of my material. I'm using Excel sheets and crappy python code right now.
Im pretty sure your stuff is some super technical backend thingy, but I figured I'd shoot my shot here. Thanks for any and all info, I appreciate it
I've been curious about grammar support for non-JSON applications. (i.e., I have some use cases where XML is more natural and easier to parse but Pydantic seems to assume you should only work with JSON.) Would guidance be able to handle this use case?
In general I find that matching the most natural format for a document outperforms waiting for the big model trainers to convince the model that the format you want is a valid structure, so anything that lets me interweave structured and unstructured generation is very interesting to me right now.
This is a great writeup! There was a period where reliable structured output was a significant differentiator and was the 'secret sauce' behind some companies success. A NL->SQL company I am familiar with comes to mind. Nice to see this both public and supported by a growing ecosystem of libraries.
One statement surprised me was that the author thinks "models over time will just be able to output JSON perfectly without the need for constraining over time."
I'm not sure how this conclusion was reached. "Perfectly" is a bar that probabilistic sampling cannot meet.
Thank you! Maybe not "perfect" but near-perfect is something we can expect. Models like the Osmosis structure which just structure data inspired some of that thinking (https://ollama.com/Osmosis/Osmosis-Structure-0.6B). Historically, JSON generation has been a latent capability of a model rather than a trained one, but that seems to be changing. gpt-oss was particularly trained for this type of behavior and so the token probabilities are heavily skewed to conform to JSON. Will be interesting to see the next batch of models!
I've a related observation. In my experience the amount of hallucinated urls with structured output (think of a field `url` or `link`) is pretty high. Especially compared to the alternative approach, where you let the llm generate text and then use a second llm to convert the text into the desired structured format.
With structured output, it's like the llm is forced to answer in a very specific way. So if there is no url for the given field, it makes up the url.
Here a related quote from the article:
> Structured outputs builds on top of sampling by constraining the model's output to a specific format.
What I've found is that it is very important to make structured outputs as easy for the LLM as possible. This means making your schemas LLM-friendly instead of programmer-friendly.
E.g. if the LLM hallucinates non-existing URLs, you may add a boolean "contains_url" field to your entity's JSON schema, placing it before the URL field itself. This way, the URL extraction is split into two simpler steps, checking if the URL is there and actually extracting it. If the URL is missing, the `"contains_url": false` field in the context will strongly urge the LLM to output an empty string there.
This also comes up with quantities a lot. Imagine you're trying to sort job adverts by salary ranges, which you extract via LLm. . These may be expressed as monthly instead of annual (common in some countries), in different currencies, pre / post tax etc.
Instead of having an `annual_pretax_salary_usd` field, which is what you actually want, but which the LLM is extremely ill-equipped to generate, have a detailed schema like `type: monthly|yearly, currency:str, low:float, high:float, tax: pre_tax|post_tax`.
That schema is much easier for an LLM to generate, and you can then convert it to a single number via straight code.
As you know, (most current) LLMs build text autoregressively. This allows them to generate text with _exactly_ the same distribution as the training data.
When you constrain LLM output at each token, that gives a completely different distribution from letting the LLM generate a full output and then doing something with that (trying again, returning an error, post-processing, etc).
E.g.: Suppose the LLM has a training set of (aa, ab, ab, ba), noting that "ab" appears twice. Suppose your valid grammar is the set (ab, ba). Then your output distributions are:
Baseline: {invalid: 25%, ab: 50%, ba: 25%}
Constrained: {invalid: 0%, ab: 75%, ba: 25%}
Note that _all_ the previously invalid outputs were dumped into the "ab" bucket, skewing the ratio between "ab" and "ba". That skew may or may not be desirable, but assuming the training process was any good it's likely undesirable.
You've observed it in URLs, but I see it in JSON output as well. LLMs like to truncate long strings from time to time, but when they do they're more likely to provide invalid JSON (adding an ellipsis at the end of the fragment and doing nothing else). If that truncation starts to happen in a constrained environment, a period is a valid character in a long string, and eventually the grammar constraint will force a closing quote to appear. The result is still garbage, but instead of a detectable parse failure you have an undetectable corrupt field.
> let the llm generate text and then use a second llm to convert the text into the desired structured format
this sounds similar to what they discussed in the article with regards to "thinking" models, i.e. let them generate their <think>blah blah</think> preamble first before starting to constrain the output to structured format
Google's Gemini API is a bit odd with structured outputs. If you specify an Application/JSON response mimetype, it will reliably respond with a consistent JSON output without any prompt engineering shenanigans. For my workflows, this setting plus providing a JSON Schema in the system prompt works even with complex schema.
The Gemini API has a canonical implementation of structured outputs where you can instead pass the JSON schema as a separate parameter to control the grammar more closely. However, this setting will reorder the JSON schema fields to be alphabetical beforehand, which is especially not desired behavior as the order of JSON fields in a schema is often very deliberate to control generation.
Have you tried techniques that don’t require modifying the LLM and the sampling strategy for structure outputs? For example, schema aligned passing, where you build error tolerance into the parser instead of coercing to a grammar.
If you can screen tokens against your grammar fast enough, you can build a bitmask over the entire token vocabulary and apply it right before sampling. As vocabulary sizes grow, this gets more complex to do in real time, but we (and other libraries) have found several optimizations to do this extremely quickly (eg for guidance, we detail some optimizations here https://github.com/guidance-ai/llguidance/blob/main/docs/opt...).
Other libraries work by essentially pre-computing all the masks for all possible generations, but of course you're restricted to working with simple grammars in this case (like a subset of regular expressions)
It's not expensive per-se; A single element-wise multiplication of the output vector.
The real "expense" is that you need to prepare masks for every element of your grammar as they are expensive to recompute as needed; LLM tokens do not cleanly map onto elements of your grammar. (Consider JSON: LLM tokens often combine various special characters such as curly braces, colons, and quotes.)
This isn't that hard to compute, it's just more work to implement.
Hey! I'm the author of the post. We haven't optimized sampling yet so it's running linearly on the CPU. A lot of SOTA work either does this while the model is running the forward pass or does the masking on the GPU.
The greedy accept is so that the mask doesn't need to be computed. Planning to make this more efficient from either ends.
I was hoping to find some insights about why performance drops when using actual structured outputs. It's been a known problem. For example this paper "Let Me Speak Freely? A Study on the Impact of Format Restrictions on Performance of Large Language Models" says:
> Surprisingly, we observe a significant decline in LLMs’ reasoning abilities under format restrictions. Furthermore, we find that stricter format constraints generally lead to greater performance degradation in reasoning tasks.
That paper had some serious methodological issues and the results have been shown to be misunderstood/incorrect in the majority of cases. In fact, in many cases structured outputs have shown to improve the quality of the results from an LLM (at least in terms of evaluation performance). The team at behind the Outlines library released a response the covers the issues in details and provides more information about structured outputs [0].
This is off-tangent but I find it a bit odd that the blog uses a URL fragment to load different articles when it's usually used to navigate within a page.
A consequence of this seems to be that clicking the link to a different article leaves you at the bottom of the page even though the article itself has changed.
This seems to be using JS to fetch the markdown and then render it but I do feel that it may be better off to simply pre-convert the markdown as part of the deployment process and serve the static page.
Hmm, so if structured output affects the quality of the response maybe it's better to convert the output to a structured format as a post-processing step?
It's a tradeoff between getting "good enough" performance w/ guided/constrained generation and using 2x calls to do the same task. Sometimes it works, sometimes it's better to have a separate model. One good case of 2 calls is the "code merging" thing, where you "chat" with a model giving it a source file + some instruction, and if it replies with something like ... //unchanged code here ... some new code ... //the rest stays the same, then you can use a code merging model to apply the changes. But that's become somewhat obsolete by the new "agentic" capabilities where models learn how to diff files directly.
After endlessly tweaking the SQL generators[1] that I am working on, I would recommend setting a "reasoning" output string to activate step by step thinking and better responses. Even better if you can add output "reasoning strings" more relevant to the specific task you are trying to solve.
We do enable forcing these sequences of tokens in guidance, and find that it significantly speeds up structured generation. There are tricky alignment issues to make sure you pick the right sequence of tokens, but you can often proxy this well by using the model's native tokenizer. Some details here in an old blog: https://guidance.readthedocs.io/en/latest/example_notebooks/...
I don't think so, because multiple tokens might match. If it needs a comma as the next character, but you have tokens for `, "blah` and `, "foo` you still want to leave those on the table.
These techniques are limited to structures that can be checked with bounded history or bounded memory (that can be checked with a grammar or FSA). What about more complex structures that don't factor easily?
It's still baffling to me that the various API providers don't let us upload our custom grammars. It would enable so many use cases, like HTML generation for example, at essentially no cost on their part.
There are some implementation concerns, but the real answer is that it is an ideological choice.
The AI companies believe that these kinds of grammar mistakes will be solved by improving the models. To build out tools for grammar constrained inference like this is to suggest, on some level, that GPT-N+1 won't magically solve the problem.
The deeper level is that it's not just simple grammar constraints. Constraining to JSON is a nice party trick, but it opens the door to further ideas. How about constraining to a programming language's grammar? Those are well defined, you just swap the JSON grammar file for the Java grammar file, job done.
We can go further: Why not use a language server to constrain not only the grammar but also the content? What variables and functions are in-scope is known, constraining a variable reference or function call to one of their names can be done with the same techique as grammar constraints. ("monitor-guided decoding", figured out back in 2023)
Entire classes of hallucination problems can be eliminated this way. The marketing writes itself; "Our AI is literally incapable of making the errors humans make!"
What many AI developers, firms, and especially their leaders find grating about this is the implication. That AI is fallible and has to be constrained.
Another such inconvenience is that while these techniques improve grammar they highlight semantic problems. The code is correct & compiles, it just does the wrong thing.
Using grammar constrained output in llama.cpp - which has been available for ages and I think is a different implementation to the one described here - does slow down generation quite a bit. I expect it has a naive implementation.
As to why providers don't give you a nice API, maybe it's hard to implement efficiently.
It's not too bad if inference is happening token by token and reverting to the CPU every time, but I understand high performance LLM inference uses speculative decoding, with a smaller model guessing multiple tokens in advance and the main model doing verification. Doing grammar constraints across multiple tokens is tougher, there's an exponential number of states that need precomputing.
So you'd need to think about putting the parser automaton onto the GPU/TPU and use it during inference without needing to stall a pipeline by going back CPU.
And then you start thinking about how big that automaton is going to be. How many states, pushdown stack. You're basically taking code from the API call and running it on your hardware. There's dragons here, around fair use, denial of service etc.
Wouldn't that have implications for inference batching, since you would have to track state and apply a different mask for each sequence in the batch? If so, I think it would directly affect utilisation and hence costs. But I could be talking out of my ass here.
My takeaway still today is that structured output is a two part process. If you require any heavy lifting on the LLM side, introducing structured output is going to cause reduced quality.
Just wait till people realize that if you have agents speak in structured output rather than chatting with you, your observability and ability to finely program your agent goes through the roof.
This post dives into that "black magic" layer, especially in the context of emerging thinking models and tools like Ollama or GPT-OSS. It’s a thoughtful look at why sampling, formatting, and standardization are not just implementation details, but core to the future of working with LLMs.
FlyingLawnmower|5 months ago
User friendly library that connects to lots of OSS model serving backends: https://github.com/guidance-ai/guidance/
Core Rust library written for high performance mask computation (written mostly by my collaborator @mmoskal): http://github.com/guidance-ai/llguidance
btown|5 months ago
TL;DR instead of just getting a token and seeing if it would be accepted by the parser, you can actually zero-out probabilities for all invalid tokens, and do the computation for this in parallel at effectively zero cost:
> Here, compute_mask() can run on the CPU during the time it would be normally just waiting for the GPU to finish. The line prob[~mask] = 0.0 would normally be fused into the softmax kernel in the last stage of the LLM, with negligible overhead. Therefore, as long as the compute_mask() function completes faster than the LLM forward pass and parser.consume() is negligible (typically follows from compute_mask() speed), the constrained generation will be as fast as the unconstrained one.
I'm curious - have there been any research/conversations about pushing masking even earlier in the pipeline? In theory, there's a fair amount of compute that goes into computing the probability of tokens that will end up being masked away anyways.
lelanthran|5 months ago
Well, thank you for that; from a quick skim of Guidance, it looks like it is used when interfacing with the model directly - i.e. if I want to use Guidance I can't simply send input to my local Ollama instance, I have to stand up a small Python program that loads the model, accepts input from the user, push the user input tokens into the model, and for each output token, reject it if it fails some criteria.
Is this correct? If so, it means that the current way LLMs are interfaced with (via stdin/stout or an HTTP endpoint) can't be used with something like Guidance, correct?
stillsut|5 months ago
Should work with any llama.cpp compatible model: https://github.com/sutt/innocuous
ru552|5 months ago
I didn't find any more on that comment below. Is there a list of supported LLMs?
dcreater|5 months ago
I'm yet to see a thorough comparison of design, performance and reliability between these options (along with outlines etc)
Balgair|5 months ago
I'm trying to write a really large book. I have a lot of material that I'm using RAG to help manage. I put into my prompts the top RAG cosine scores with some summaries of characters and previous chapters and scene sketches. I get scenes out and then work them over. LLMs are really helpful for my disability and have allowed me to make any progress at all on this.
Is your thing something I should look into for helping keep track of my material. I'm using Excel sheets and crappy python code right now.
Im pretty sure your stuff is some super technical backend thingy, but I figured I'd shoot my shot here. Thanks for any and all info, I appreciate it
ijk|5 months ago
In general I find that matching the most natural format for a document outperforms waiting for the big model trainers to convince the model that the format you want is a valid structure, so anything that lets me interweave structured and unstructured generation is very interesting to me right now.
ninadpathak|5 months ago
[deleted]
iandanforth|5 months ago
One statement surprised me was that the author thinks "models over time will just be able to output JSON perfectly without the need for constraining over time."
I'm not sure how this conclusion was reached. "Perfectly" is a bar that probabilistic sampling cannot meet.
parthsareen|5 months ago
ninadpathak|5 months ago
[deleted]
madethemcry|5 months ago
I've a related observation. In my experience the amount of hallucinated urls with structured output (think of a field `url` or `link`) is pretty high. Especially compared to the alternative approach, where you let the llm generate text and then use a second llm to convert the text into the desired structured format.
With structured output, it's like the llm is forced to answer in a very specific way. So if there is no url for the given field, it makes up the url.
Here a related quote from the article:
> Structured outputs builds on top of sampling by constraining the model's output to a specific format.
miki123211|5 months ago
E.g. if the LLM hallucinates non-existing URLs, you may add a boolean "contains_url" field to your entity's JSON schema, placing it before the URL field itself. This way, the URL extraction is split into two simpler steps, checking if the URL is there and actually extracting it. If the URL is missing, the `"contains_url": false` field in the context will strongly urge the LLM to output an empty string there.
This also comes up with quantities a lot. Imagine you're trying to sort job adverts by salary ranges, which you extract via LLm. . These may be expressed as monthly instead of annual (common in some countries), in different currencies, pre / post tax etc.
Instead of having an `annual_pretax_salary_usd` field, which is what you actually want, but which the LLM is extremely ill-equipped to generate, have a detailed schema like `type: monthly|yearly, currency:str, low:float, high:float, tax: pre_tax|post_tax`.
That schema is much easier for an LLM to generate, and you can then convert it to a single number via straight code.
hansvm|5 months ago
As you know, (most current) LLMs build text autoregressively. This allows them to generate text with _exactly_ the same distribution as the training data.
When you constrain LLM output at each token, that gives a completely different distribution from letting the LLM generate a full output and then doing something with that (trying again, returning an error, post-processing, etc).
E.g.: Suppose the LLM has a training set of (aa, ab, ab, ba), noting that "ab" appears twice. Suppose your valid grammar is the set (ab, ba). Then your output distributions are:
Baseline: {invalid: 25%, ab: 50%, ba: 25%}
Constrained: {invalid: 0%, ab: 75%, ba: 25%}
Note that _all_ the previously invalid outputs were dumped into the "ab" bucket, skewing the ratio between "ab" and "ba". That skew may or may not be desirable, but assuming the training process was any good it's likely undesirable.
You've observed it in URLs, but I see it in JSON output as well. LLMs like to truncate long strings from time to time, but when they do they're more likely to provide invalid JSON (adding an ellipsis at the end of the fragment and doing nothing else). If that truncation starts to happen in a constrained environment, a period is a valid character in a long string, and eventually the grammar constraint will force a closing quote to appear. The result is still garbage, but instead of a detectable parse failure you have an undetectable corrupt field.
anentropic|5 months ago
this sounds similar to what they discussed in the article with regards to "thinking" models, i.e. let them generate their <think>blah blah</think> preamble first before starting to constrain the output to structured format
minimaxir|5 months ago
The Gemini API has a canonical implementation of structured outputs where you can instead pass the JSON schema as a separate parameter to control the grammar more closely. However, this setting will reorder the JSON schema fields to be alphabetical beforehand, which is especially not desired behavior as the order of JSON fields in a schema is often very deliberate to control generation.
gdudeman|5 months ago
You can specify ordering in the Gemini API with propertyOrdering:
"propertyOrdering": ["recipeName", "ingredients"]
thm|5 months ago
Inviz|5 months ago
hellovai|5 months ago
https://boundaryml.com/blog/schema-aligned-parsing
Jonovono|5 months ago
frotaur|5 months ago
Why wouldn't we apply the mask immediately for the first sampling? Is this an optimization somehow, is masking expensive?
FlyingLawnmower|5 months ago
Other libraries work by essentially pre-computing all the masks for all possible generations, but of course you're restricted to working with simple grammars in this case (like a subset of regular expressions)
2THFairy|5 months ago
> is masking expensive?
It's not expensive per-se; A single element-wise multiplication of the output vector.
The real "expense" is that you need to prepare masks for every element of your grammar as they are expensive to recompute as needed; LLM tokens do not cleanly map onto elements of your grammar. (Consider JSON: LLM tokens often combine various special characters such as curly braces, colons, and quotes.)
This isn't that hard to compute, it's just more work to implement.
parthsareen|5 months ago
The greedy accept is so that the mask doesn't need to be computed. Planning to make this more efficient from either ends.
ninadpathak|5 months ago
[deleted]
heckintime|5 months ago
Human
4x1200 with 30 second rest
AI DSL output
Repeat 4 times:
- Run 1200 meters
- Rest 30 seconds
I hand wrote a recursive descent parser in Python to process DSL. Human speech to DSL is pretty effective with a simple prompt and some examples.
I created a tool that can program Garmin & Apple Watches for interval training based on what I wrote above.
https://speedystride.com
Looking for beta testers- please give it a try :)
visarga|5 months ago
> Surprisingly, we observe a significant decline in LLMs’ reasoning abilities under format restrictions. Furthermore, we find that stricter format constraints generally lead to greater performance degradation in reasoning tasks.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.02442v1
roadside_picnic|5 months ago
0. https://blog.dottxt.ai/say-what-you-mean.html
EnnEmmEss|5 months ago
A consequence of this seems to be that clicking the link to a different article leaves you at the bottom of the page even though the article itself has changed.
This seems to be using JS to fetch the markdown and then render it but I do feel that it may be better off to simply pre-convert the markdown as part of the deployment process and serve the static page.
parthsareen|5 months ago
_1tem|5 months ago
NitpickLawyer|5 months ago
l5870uoo9y|5 months ago
[1]: https://app.sqlai.ai
ninadpathak|5 months ago
[deleted]
amelius|5 months ago
However, why not use a grammar that does not have invalid sentences, and from there convert to any grammar that you want?
cyptus|5 months ago
parthsareen|5 months ago
electroglyph|5 months ago
FlyingLawnmower|5 months ago
maccam912|5 months ago
ninadpathak|5 months ago
[deleted]
benob|5 months ago
thrance|5 months ago
2THFairy|5 months ago
The AI companies believe that these kinds of grammar mistakes will be solved by improving the models. To build out tools for grammar constrained inference like this is to suggest, on some level, that GPT-N+1 won't magically solve the problem.
The deeper level is that it's not just simple grammar constraints. Constraining to JSON is a nice party trick, but it opens the door to further ideas. How about constraining to a programming language's grammar? Those are well defined, you just swap the JSON grammar file for the Java grammar file, job done.
We can go further: Why not use a language server to constrain not only the grammar but also the content? What variables and functions are in-scope is known, constraining a variable reference or function call to one of their names can be done with the same techique as grammar constraints. ("monitor-guided decoding", figured out back in 2023)
Entire classes of hallucination problems can be eliminated this way. The marketing writes itself; "Our AI is literally incapable of making the errors humans make!"
What many AI developers, firms, and especially their leaders find grating about this is the implication. That AI is fallible and has to be constrained.
Another such inconvenience is that while these techniques improve grammar they highlight semantic problems. The code is correct & compiles, it just does the wrong thing.
barrkel|5 months ago
As to why providers don't give you a nice API, maybe it's hard to implement efficiently.
It's not too bad if inference is happening token by token and reverting to the CPU every time, but I understand high performance LLM inference uses speculative decoding, with a smaller model guessing multiple tokens in advance and the main model doing verification. Doing grammar constraints across multiple tokens is tougher, there's an exponential number of states that need precomputing.
So you'd need to think about putting the parser automaton onto the GPU/TPU and use it during inference without needing to stall a pipeline by going back CPU.
And then you start thinking about how big that automaton is going to be. How many states, pushdown stack. You're basically taking code from the API call and running it on your hardware. There's dragons here, around fair use, denial of service etc.
weberer|5 months ago
https://fireworks.ai/docs/structured-responses/structured-ou...
FlyingLawnmower|5 months ago
bubblyworld|5 months ago
esafak|5 months ago
infecto|5 months ago
k__|5 months ago
constantinum|5 months ago
unknown|5 months ago
[deleted]
CuriouslyC|5 months ago
SamLeBarbare|5 months ago
electroglyph|5 months ago