Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study evaluates the structural reliability of LLM-generated outputs in software engineering, focusing on how these outputs must conform to strict organizational formats to be operationally viable. By categorizing errors into syntax, structural, and semantic failures, the authors benchmark various mitigation strategies, including grammar-constrained decoding and Template Token Match Generation (TTMG). While TTMG significantly reduces syntax errors, the persistence of structural and semantic errors indicates that current solutions are inadequate, necessitating a more integrated approach to ensure both structural fidelity and semantic correctness in LLM applications.
Despite advances in LLMs, a staggering number of outputs still fail to meet structural and semantic requirements, revealing critical gaps in current generation methods.
LLM-generated outputs in software engineering rarely exist in isolation. They must plug into toolchains, APIs, and data pipelines that impose strict, often organization-specific structural contracts. A semantically correct output that violates the expected format is, from the consuming system's perspective, indistinguishable from a wrong answer, making structural fidelity an operational prerequisite for deploying LLMs in practice. Yet current models routinely produce syntactically invalid or structurally non-compliant outputs. Unlike encoders, autoregressive decoders generate text token-by-token with a local rather than global focus, amplifying structural fragility whenever the target format deviates from familiar training distributions. We present a systematic evaluation of structural reliability across four representative SE tasks, categorizing failures into syntax, structural, and semantic errors. We benchmark ways of mitigation targeting the decoder: grammar-constrained decoding, regex-based validation, and a strict template-driven control (Template Token Match Generation, TTMG) to isolate the sources of these failures. TTMG nearly eliminates syntax errors, yet substantial structural and semantic errors persist, demonstrating that the core bottleneck lies beyond syntax formatting. A detailed case study further illustrates how residual errors cascade in downstream workflows. Our findings show that current structure-enforcing tools are necessary but insufficient, and highlight the need for approaches that jointly ensure structural fidelity and semantic correctness in LLM-driven workflows.
