RL-Struct: A Lightweight Reinforcement Learning Framework for Reliable Structured Output in LLMs

Ruike Hu; Shulei Wu

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 39 references

RL-Struct: A Lightweight Reinforcement Learning Framework for Reliable Structured Output in LLMs

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Reinforcement learning teaches small LLMs to emit valid JSON, closing the structure gap.

desk verdict Plausible GRPO+LoRA recipe for JSON validity, but the reported gains over PPO are noise and the undefined test split makes the headline numbers unverifiable; needs a real overhaul before the claims stand. read the letter →

arxiv 2512.00319 v3 pith:EOLWVEHW submitted 2025-11-29 cs.AI cs.LG

Ruike Hu , Shulei Wu This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.AIcs.LG

keywords reinforcementlearningstructuredoutputJSONgenerationGRPOrewardshapingLLMalignmentemergentcurriculumLoRA

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that the gap between an LLM's probabilistic token generation and the rigid demands of structured data can be closed by training-time reinforcement learning rather than inference-time constraints. It proposes RL-Struct, a framework that uses group-based policy optimization (GRPO) with a weighted five-part reward—key presence, formatting, JSON validity, content overlap, and length—to align a 4-billion-parameter model. The central claim is that this setup achieves 89.7% structural accuracy and 92.1% JSON validity on recipe generation, outperforming supervised fine-tuning and zero-shot baselines while cutting peak GPU memory by about 38% compared with PPO. The paper also reports an emergent curriculum: the model learns syntax before semantics without manual scheduling. If correct, this implies that structural reliability is a learnable alignment objective, not something that requires large code-specialized models or runtime grammars.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the composite reward function combined with GRPO's group-relative advantage estimator. The reward decomposes output quality into five automatically computed signals: required-key presence (Rstruct), markdown code-block format (Rformat), JSON parseability (Rvalid), token-level F1 against ground truth (Rcorrect), and a length penalty (Rlength). These are weighted (1.0, 0.5, 1.0, 0.5, 0.1) and summed; GRPO samples a group of outputs per prompt, normalizes rewards within the group to compute advantages, and updates the policy without requiring a critic network. The heavy weighting of structural rewards is what the paper identifies as the cause of the emergent curriculum

What would settle it

Take the released model and run it on a fresh set of 500 prompt-schema pairs from a different domain with similar complexity; if structural accuracy drops to near the SFT baseline, the generalization claim collapses. Alternatively, compare the recipe-generation test prompts against the training data to check for overlap—any substantial overlap would invalidate the reported 89.7% figure as a measure of generalization.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms: A compact generalist language model fine-tuned with GRPO and a dense, hierarchical reward function can internalize JSON schema constraints such that roughly 90% of its generations are structurally valid and 92% parse, surpassing larger or stronger baselines and approaching the reliability of constrained decoding at normal sampling speed. The authors further claim that training self-organizes into two phases—syntax acquisition first, then semantic refinement—which they interpret as an emergent curriculum driven purely by reward weighting. Their ablation shows that removing the JSON-validity reward drops validity from 92.1% to 68.3%, and removing the structure reward

Load-bearing premise

The headline numbers assume a fair, held-out evaluation: the paper never specifies the train/test split, the size of the test set, or whether all baselines shared identical prompts and schema parsing, and this gap would undermine the reported advantage over SFT if violated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If structural alignment can be learned this cheaply, small models can serve as reliable structured-output modules in agent workflows, reducing dependence on large proprietary models.
Training-time alignment avoids inference overhead: unlike constrained decoding, it maintains standard sampling speed while delivering high structural reliability.
The emergent curriculum suggests that dense, hierarchical reward shaping may offer a general recipe for teaching formal languages to LLMs without manual curriculum design.
The ablation results imply that reward decomposition matters: each component addresses a distinct failure mode, so practitioners should not collapse the reward to a single validity signal.
The memory reduction from dropping the critic network makes RL-based structural alignment feasible on a single consumer-grade GPU.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The claimed syntax-before-semantics ordering may be an artifact of the chosen reward weights rather than an intrinsic property of GRPO; a testable prediction is that reweighting (e.g., equal weights) would alter the phase order.
The reported ~90% accuracy on one recipe dataset may not transfer to more complex schemas; the paper's own generalization table shows lower absolute numbers on reasoning and tool-use tasks, suggesting headroom remains.
The comparison of memory usage between GRPO and PPO could be sharpened by reporting training throughput at matched batch sizes; the current numbers convey feasibility but not a fully controlled efficiency trade-off.
The paper's failure-mode observation—errors are often repairable, such as a missing closing brace—could be turned into a practical extension: a cheap repair pass might push validity well above 92% in deployment.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: the core idea is a standard GRPO+LoRA recipe with a dense, schema-derived reward for JSON validity. That's fine. But the paper doesn't currently support its headline claims: the gap over PPO is within error bars, the train/test split is never defined, and several references look unidentifiable. The ablation study is nicely consistent, which tells me the method isn't broken—just under-verified.

What's genuinely useful: the reward decomposition into structure, format, validity, correctness, length is a sensible way to dense-up a sparse signal, and the memory reduction from dropping the critic (14.2 vs 22.8 GB) is a concrete practical benefit on a 4090. The observation that validity saturates before content accuracy is plausible but it's not an 'emergent curriculum'—the weights w_valid=1.0 vs w_correct=0.5 hard-code that priority. The authors admit they didn't plot gradient norms, so the theoretical framing is mostly illustrative.

The soft spots: (1) No defined train/test split. The dataset is a single public resource and the authors train on roughly 500 samples (250 steps). If the reported numbers are measured on the training prompts, the advantage over SFT is just memorization. This is the load-bearing issue. (2) The 'significant' PPO comparison: 89.7 vs 89.1 structural, 92.1 vs 91.5 validity—these are 0.6 percentage points apart, within the reported error bars. Calling it significant is an overstatement. (3) OOD generalization table appears to test on unseen schemas, but the protocol for generating those prompts isn't described. (4) The citation list includes several entries that don't look verifiable: e.g., [4] arXiv:2501.00001, [5] arXiv:2401.00002, [37] arXiv:2402.00001, [39] arXiv:2405.00001. These are exactly the sort of placeholder IDs that raise integrity concerns. At minimum, the authors need to provide full citations or remove them. (5) No code or data release, despite a HF model link that isn't described.

None of these are fatal to the underlying approach—GRPO for structured syntax is a reasonable line of attack. But the paper as written overclaims, and the evaluation gaps are serious enough that I wouldn't rely on its numbers yet.

Who's it for: people working on making small open models emit valid JSON without inference-time overhead. It's a useful pointer to the 'dense reward + GRPO' idea, but I wouldn't cite it as evidence in its current form.

For peer review: I'd send it to a serious referee, but with the request to dig into the evaluation protocol and reference list. The authors probably need to do another round of experiments with a clean holdout split and provide reasonable baselines before this becomes citable.

Would I bring it to reading group? Maybe—it would generate a good discussion about evaluation hygiene in RL-for-format papers.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes RL-Struct, a lightweight framework that combines GRPO with LoRA and a weighted five-component reward function to align a Qwen3-4B model with JSON schema constraints. The main claims are 89.7% structural accuracy and 92.1% JSON validity on a recipe-generation task, a roughly 38% peak-VRAM reduction relative to PPO, an emergent syntax-first curriculum, and OOD generalization to GSM8K-JSON and ToolUse. The method itself—GRPO with dense rule-based rewards and LoRA—is standard and plausible, and the ablations and resource measurements are useful. However, the evaluation protocol is under-specified in ways that bear directly on the headline comparisons.

Significance. If the reported numbers are based on a clean held-out evaluation, the paper makes a practically useful point: a compact 4B model can be trained in a resource-efficient way to produce more schema-reliable JSON than SFT or DPO, and with comparable or better memory usage than PPO. The ablation study in Table 4 gives evidence that the individual reward components matter, and the VRAM comparison in Table 2 is valuable for practitioners. The paper also ships a public model, which supports reproducibility. The main qualification is that the evaluation split, baseline controls, and statistical significance are not documented precisely enough to verify the central effectiveness claim; several narrative claims also appear stronger than the evidence.

major comments (5)

[§4.1, §4.3, §5.6] The evaluation split is never defined. Section 4.1 says only that data were 'filtering for high-quality examples'; Section 4.3 says results are 'averaged over 3 independent runs'; Section 5.6 says training used '250 steps ≈ 500 samples.' The paper does not state the train/test split, the number of test prompts, or whether all baselines used identical prompt and schema strings. Without this, the headline 89.7%/92.1% figures and the superiority claims over SFT, DPO, and PPO could reflect train-set memorization or inconsistent baseline conditions. This is the central quantitative claim, so the split and test-set size must be reported.
[Table 1, §4.3] The advantage over PPO is within overlapping error bars: structural accuracy 89.1±0.6 vs. 89.7±0.5, JSON validity 91.5±0.5 vs. 92.1±0.4, and content accuracy 84.2±0.5 vs. 84.5±0.5. The paper states that RL-Struct 'significantly outperforms' baselines and places itself on the Pareto frontier without qualification. A significance test or a statistical comparison across runs is needed before claiming superiority over PPO; otherwise the comparisons should be phrased as not distinguishable.
[§4.5, Table 3] The OOD generalization protocol is ambiguous. Table 3 reports results on GSM8K-JSON and ToolUse, but the text never states whether RL-Struct is evaluated zero-shot after training on the recipe task or retrained on each task. The phrase 'OOD generalization' implies the former, but the reader cannot tell from the current description. The schemas, data splits, and baseline conditions for these tasks are also omitted. This must be clarified before the transfer claim can be assessed.
[§4.3 vs. §5.6] There is a direct internal contradiction about the PPO baseline. Section 4.3 says 'For the PPO baseline, we also employed LoRA' and describes a separate critic initialized from the SFT model. Section 5.6 then says the comparison 'lacks some advanced baselines such as Schema-aware SFT or PPO with LoRA' due to the difficulty of a stable PPO-LoRA pipeline. These statements cannot both be true. The exact PPO configuration matters for the memory comparison in Table 2, so this must be resolved.
[§3.2, §3.4, Figure 8] The claimed 'emergent curriculum' is substantially designed in. The weights w_valid=1.0 and w_correct=0.5 are explicitly chosen to prioritize syntax, and the ablation in Table 4 shows that removing the validity reward collapses JSON validity. Section 3.4's 'Gradient Dominance' is presented as a hypothesis, and the paper admits that gradient norms are not plotted. The training dynamics in Figure 8 are consistent with a weight-induced ordering, but that is not an 'emergent' or 'self-organized' curriculum. Please rephrase the claim and either supply gradient measurements or drop the dominance hypothesis.

minor comments (5)

[§4.2, Eq. (7)] The content accuracy metric combines GPT-4 judge scores with the same token-level F1 used as the training reward R_correct. This limits the independence of the content-quality evaluation; please state this explicitly.
[§3.3, Eq. (6)] The sentence 'The optimization objective is defined as:' is separated from the displayed equation, and the equation is numbered out of order. Please fix the placement and numbering.
[Figure 2, Figure 3] Several labels are garbled or unclear, e.g., 'FRf mtFmt' in Figure 3 and the legend ordering in Figure 2. Please clean up the figures.
[References, §2] Reference [16], cited for 'fine-tuning retrieval models', is actually an in-context retrieval-augmented language model paper; the citation does not match the text.
[Abstract] Minor typo: 'available athttps://' is missing a space. Also, the abstract's phrase 'emergent curriculum' should be softened in light of the major comments above.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The main RL performance/VRAM claims are not circular, but the 'emergent curriculum' contribution is designed in by the hand-chosen reward weights and then reported as self-organized.

self definitional [Section 3.2 (reward weights), Section 3.3 (Emergent Curriculum), Section 3.4 (Approximating Lexicographic Preferences)]
"We assign higher weights to Rvalid and Rstruct to prioritize structural constraints, effectively creating a curriculum where the model first learns how to speak (syntax) before learning what to say (semantics). ... Crucially, we observe that this group-based optimization, combined with our hierarchical reward function, induces an Emergent Curriculum [33, 34]: the model spontaneously prioritizes the optimization of 'easier' structural rewards (Rvalid) before tackling 'harder' semantic objectives (Rcorrect), without any manual schedule design."

The claimed 'emergent curriculum' is presented as a spontaneous, self-organized discovery ('without any manual schedule design'), but the same passage explains that the reward weights were explicitly chosen to create exactly this syntax-first ordering ('effectively creating a curriculum'). Section 3.4 confirms the reduction: 'our heavy weighting (wvalid = 1.0 vs wcorrect = 0.5) encourages the optimization to prioritize the region of high structural validity.' The observed phase ordering (R_valid saturating before R_correct) is therefore entailed by the hand-set scalarization, not an independent emergent result. It is a re-description of the designed reward hierarchy, not a prediction.

full rationale

The central quantitative claims are empirical and non-circular: the reward function is fully specified, the GRPO/PPO/DPO comparisons are independent training runs, and the LLM-as-a-judge evaluation is external to training. There is no uniqueness theorem or self-citation chain forcing the results. The only load-bearing circularity I can substantiate from the paper's own text is the 'emergent curriculum' contribution: the reward weights were selected to prioritize syntax over semantics, so reporting the resulting syntax-first training dynamics as 'spontaneous' or 'emergent' reduces by construction to that manual weighting. This is a partial, non-central circularity, hence a score of 4 rather than 0 or 2.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical or theoretical entities are introduced. The central method uses existing algorithms (GRPO, LoRA) and hand-designed reward weights; the 'Structure Gap' is a framing device rather than a new mechanism.

free parameters (5)

Reward component weights (w_valid, w_struct, w_format, w_correct, w_length) = 1.0, 1.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.1
Manually chosen in Section 3.2; the paper states the weights control the curriculum and the final Pareto position, and the ablation only varies w_valid moderately.
Format reward coefficients = 0.5 for markdown fence, 0.3 for json tag
Hand-selected constants in Eq. (2) that shape style rewards; no sensitivity analysis is provided.
Length interval [L_min, L_max] = not reported
Appears in Eq. (5) as the length penalty condition, but the interval is never specified, making the length reward irreproducible.
GRPO group size G = not reported
Algorithm 1 requires G samples per prompt for advantage normalization, but the paper never states G; Table 2 gives max batch size 12 without clarifying group size.
LoRA rank, alpha, learning rate = rank=32, alpha=32, lr=5e-6
Standard training hyperparameters chosen by hand; less load-bearing than the reward design but still part of the method.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption GRPO's group-relative advantage is a valid baseline for policy-gradient optimization.
Adopted from DeepSeekMath [7] without proof; the entire training signal depends on it.
ad hoc to paper The five reward components can be summed into a scalar that preserves the intended objective.
The weighted sum in Section 3.2 is chosen by hand. The paper cites Ng et al. reward shaping, but the rewards are terminal rule-based signals, not potential-based shaping, so the invariance theorem may not apply.
domain assumption json.loads success and key-presence checks capture 'structural accuracy'.
Metrics in Table 1 and Table 3 treat parsing success and key recall as the definition of structure, ignoring type mismatches and deeper schema constraints.
ad hoc to paper F1 overlap with ground truth is a suitable training reward for content accuracy.
R_correct in Eq. (4) can be gamed by token overlap; no reward-hacking analysis is provided.
domain assumption GPT-4-Turbo judge scores correlate with human judgment for this task.
Used in Eq. (7) with only a citation; no calibration on this dataset is reported.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of RL-Struct: A Lightweight Reinforcement Learning Framework for Reliable Structured Output in LLMs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EOLWVEHW

@misc{pith2026251200319,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: RL-Struct: A Lightweight Reinforcement Learning Framework for Reliable Structured Output in LLMs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EOLWVEHW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.00319}
}

read the original abstract

The Structure Gap between probabilistic LLM generation and deterministic schema requirements hinders automated workflows. We propose RL-Struct, a lightweight framework using Gradient Regularized Policy Optimization (GRPO) with a hierarchical reward function to align LLMs with structural constraints. This approach eliminates the critic network, reducing peak VRAM by 38% compared to PPO. On complex JSON tasks, RL-Struct achieves 89.7% structural accuracy and 92.1% validity, significantly outperforming SFT and zero-shot baselines. We also report an emergent curriculum--a self-organized learning process where the model prioritizes syntax before semantics. Our model is publicly available at https://huggingface.co/Freakz3z/Qwen-JSON.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.00319 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Method Landscape: Efficiency vs. Reliability. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Overview of the RL-Struct Framework. The computational graph of the RL-Struct framework using GRPO. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (5 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Architectural comparison between PPO, DPO, and GRPO. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Performance comparison across an expanded set [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Sample Efficiency Analysis. The curve demon [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Visualization of the Self-Paced Learning Dy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Ablation Study illustrating the impact of remov [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 14 linked inside Pith

[4]

Lu et al

Y . Lu et al. Investigating structured generation ca- pabilities of large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.00001, 2025

arXiv 2025
[5]

X. Li. A benchmark for structured and format- ted spatial outputs from llms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.00002, 2024

arXiv 2024
[37]

Wang et al

Z. Wang et al. Large language models as judges: A comprehensive survey.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.00001, 2024

arXiv 2024
[39]

T. Liu. Rl fine-tuning of language models: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.00001, 2024. 13

arXiv 2024
[1]

Gpt-4 technical report

Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Florencia Leoni Aleman, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, et al. Gpt-4 technical report. In arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774, 2023

arXiv 2023
[2]

Llama: Open and effi- cient foundation language models

Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Ham- bro, Faisal Azhar, et al. Llama: Open and effi- cient foundation language models. InarXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971, 2023

arXiv 2023
[3]

Autogen: En- abling next-gen llm applications

Qingyun Wu, Gagan Bansal, Jieyu Zhang, Yiran Wu, Beibin Li, Erkang Zhu, Li Jiang, Xiaoyun Zhang, Shaokun Zhang, Jiale Liu, et al. Autogen: En- abling next-gen llm applications. InarXiv preprint arXiv:2308.08155, 2023

arXiv 2023
[6]

Picard: Parsing incrementally for constrained auto-regressive decoding from language models

Torsten Scholak, Nathan Schucher, and Dzmitry Bah- danau. Picard: Parsing incrementally for constrained auto-regressive decoding from language models. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 9895–9901, 2021

2021

Show all 39 references

[7]

Deepseek- math: Pushing the limits of mathematical reason- ing in open language models

Zhihong Shao, Peiyi Wang, Qihao Zhu, Runxin Xu, Alan Song, Mingchuan Xiao, Y Li, et al. Deepseek- math: Pushing the limits of mathematical reason- ing in open language models. InarXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03300, 2024

2024 arXiv
[8]

Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback

Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, et al. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volum...

2022
[9]

Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models

Edward J Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2022

2022
[10]

Curriculum learning

Yoshua Bengio, Jérôme Louradour, Ronan Collobert, and Jason Weston. Curriculum learning. InProceed- ings of the 26th annual international conference on machine learning, pages 41–48, 2009

2009
[11]

Qlora: Efficient finetuning of quantized llms

Tim Dettmers, Artidoro Pagnoni, Ari Holtzman, and Luke Zettlemoyer. Qlora: Efficient finetuning of quantized llms. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 36, 2023

2023
[12]

Proximal policy optimization algorithms.arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347, 2017

John Schulman, Filip Wolski, Prafulla Dhari- wal, Alec Radford, and Oleg Klimov. Proximal policy optimization algorithms.arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347, 2017

2017 arXiv
[13]

A general theoretical paradigm to understand learning from human pref- erences

Mohammad Gheshlaghi Azar, Mark Rowland, Bi- lal Piot, Daniel Guo, Daniele Calandriello, Michal Valko, and Rémi Munos. A general theoretical paradigm to understand learning from human pref- erences. InInternational Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pages 444...

2024
[14]

Kto: Model alignment as prospect theoretic optimization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.01306, 2024

Kawin Ethayarajh, Winnie Xu, Dan Jurafsky, and Douwe Kiela. Kto: Model alignment as prospect theoretic optimization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.01306, 2024

2024 arXiv
[15]

Zhang et al

L. Zhang et al. Grpo-care: Consistency-aware reinforcement learning for multimodal reasoning. NeurIPS, 2024

2024
[16]

In- context retrieval-augmented language models

Ori Ram, Yoav Levine, Itay Dalmedigos, Doron Schuhmann, Amnon Shashua, and Omer Levy. In- context retrieval-augmented language models. In Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, volume 11, pages 1316–1331, 2023

2023
[17]

Training diffusion models with reinforcement learning

Kevin Black, Michael Janner, Yilun Du, Ilya Kostrikov, and Sergey Levine. Training diffusion models with reinforcement learning. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2024

2024
[18]

Fast inference from transformers via speculative de- coding

Yaniv Leviathan, Matan Kalman, and Yossi Matias. Fast inference from transformers via speculative de- coding. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning, pages 19274–19286, 2023

2023
[19]

Efficient guided generation for large language models

Brandon T Willard and Rémi Louf. Efficient guided generation for large language models. InarXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09702, 2023

2023 arXiv
[20]

Dis- tilling the knowledge in a neural network.arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.02531, 2015

Geoffrey Hinton, Oriol Vinyals, and Jeff Dean. Dis- tilling the knowledge in a neural network.arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.02531, 2015

2015 arXiv
[21]

Code llama: Open foundation models for code

Baptiste Roziere, Jonas Gehring, Fabian Gloeckle, Sten Sootla, Itai Gat, Xiaoqing Ellen Tan, Yossi Adi, Jingyu Liu, Tal Remez, Jérémy Rapin, et al. Code llama: Open foundation models for code. InarXiv preprint arXiv:2308.12950, 2023

2023 arXiv
[22]

Wizardcoder: Empowering code large language models with evol-instruct

Ziyang Luo, Can Xu, Pu Zhao, Qingfeng Sun, Xiubo Geng, Wenxiang Hu, Chongyang Tao, Jing Ma, Qing- wei Lin, and Daxin Jiang. Wizardcoder: Empowering code large language models with evol-instruct. InIn- ternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2024

2024
[23]

Generative agents: Interactive simulacra of human behavior

Joon Sung Park, Joseph C O’Brien, Carrie J Cai, Meredith Ringel Morris, Percy Liang, and Michael S Bernstein. Generative agents: Interactive simulacra of human behavior. InProceedings of the 36th An- nual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, pages 1–22, 2023

2023
[24]

A survey on large language model based autonomous agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.11432, 2023

Lei Wang, Chen Ma, Xueyang Feng, Zeyu Zhang, Hao Yang, Jingsen Zhang, Zhiyuan Chen, Jiakai Tang, Xu Chen, Yankai Lin, et al. A survey on large language model based autonomous agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.11432, 2023

2023 arXiv
[25]

Smith and A

J. Smith and A. Doe. Think inside the json: Rein- forcement strategy for strict schema adherence.Pro- ceedings of ACL, 2024

2024
[26]

B. Johnson. A case study on json schema in modern software integration.IEEE Software, 2024

2024
[27]

Metagpt: Meta programming for a multi-agent collaborative framework

Sirui Hong, Mingchen Zhuge, Jonathan Chen, Xiawu Wang, Yuheng Wang, Julian Coda-Forno, Zubing Li, Haocheng Duan, Furu Wu, Jie Tang, et al. Metagpt: Meta programming for a multi-agent collaborative framework. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2024

2024
[28]

Large language models cannot self-correct reason- ing yet

Jie Huang, Xinyun Chen, Swaroop Mishra, Denny Zhou, Dian Yu, Michael Collins, and Quoc V Le. Large language models cannot self-correct reason- ing yet. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2024

2024
[29]

Teaching large language models to self-debug

Xinyun Chen, Maxwell Lin, Nathanael Schärli, and Denny Zhou. Teaching large language models to self-debug. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2024

2024
[30]

Exploring models and data for remote sens- ing image caption generation.IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 56(4):2183–2195, 2017

Xiaoqiang Lu, Bin Wang, Xiangtao Zheng, and Xue- long Li. Exploring models and data for remote sens- ing image caption generation.IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 56(4):2183–2195, 2017

2017
[31]

Policy invariance under reward transformations: The- ory and application to reward shaping

Andrew Y Ng, Daishi Harada, and Stuart Russell. Policy invariance under reward transformations: The- ory and application to reward shaping. InInterna- tional Conference on Machine Learning, volume 99, pages 278–287, 1999

1999
[32]

Ferrag et al

M. Ferrag et al. Group relative policy optimization (grpo) for structured reasoning.Frontiers of Com- puter Science, 2025

2025
[33]

Y . Chen. Curr-reft: Overcoming training bottlenecks in small-language models.ICLR, 2024

2024
[34]

K. Wang. Curriculum reinforcement learning from easy to hard tasks improves llm reasoning.ICML, 2024. 12

2024
[35]

recipes_data_food.com

AkashPS11. recipes_data_food.com. https: //huggingface.co/datasets/AkashPS11/ recipes_data_food.com, 2024

2024
[36]

Direct preference optimization: Your language model is secretly a reward model

Rafael Rafailov, Archit Sharma, Eric Mitchell, Christopher D Manning, Stefano Ermon, and Chelsea Finn. Direct preference optimization: Your language model is secretly a reward model. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 36, 2023

2023
[38]

H. Li. Large language model-driven structured output evaluation framework.EMNLP, 2024

2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [4]

Lu et al

Y . Lu et al. Investigating structured generation ca- pabilities of large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.00001, 2025

arXiv 2025

[2] [5]

X. Li. A benchmark for structured and format- ted spatial outputs from llms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.00002, 2024

arXiv 2024

[3] [37]

Wang et al

Z. Wang et al. Large language models as judges: A comprehensive survey.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.00001, 2024

arXiv 2024

[4] [39]

T. Liu. Rl fine-tuning of language models: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.00001, 2024. 13

arXiv 2024

[5] [1]

Gpt-4 technical report

Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Florencia Leoni Aleman, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, et al. Gpt-4 technical report. In arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774, 2023

arXiv 2023

[6] [2]

Llama: Open and effi- cient foundation language models

Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Ham- bro, Faisal Azhar, et al. Llama: Open and effi- cient foundation language models. InarXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971, 2023

arXiv 2023

[7] [3]

Autogen: En- abling next-gen llm applications

Qingyun Wu, Gagan Bansal, Jieyu Zhang, Yiran Wu, Beibin Li, Erkang Zhu, Li Jiang, Xiaoyun Zhang, Shaokun Zhang, Jiale Liu, et al. Autogen: En- abling next-gen llm applications. InarXiv preprint arXiv:2308.08155, 2023

arXiv 2023

[8] [6]

Picard: Parsing incrementally for constrained auto-regressive decoding from language models

Torsten Scholak, Nathan Schucher, and Dzmitry Bah- danau. Picard: Parsing incrementally for constrained auto-regressive decoding from language models. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 9895–9901, 2021

2021