wip

Author: acharneski

projects/grammar_lookahead_proposal.md

@@ -0,0 +1,367 @@
+---
+layout: default
+title: Formal Grammar Lookahead for Constrained LLM Generation
+collection: projects
+---
+
+# Formal Grammar Lookahead for Constrained LLM Generation
+
+## Abstract
+
+Current constrained generation methods for large language models rely on local validity checking—ensuring each token maintains parser state consistency without considering future reachability. This leads to generation failures where the model produces valid prefixes that cannot be completed within the target grammar. We propose a lookahead-based constraint mechanism that evaluates token choices based on their potential to reach valid terminal states, significantly improving generation success rates and output quality for structured formats.
+
+## Problem Statement
+
+Existing constrained generation approaches (Guidance, JSONFormer, Outlines) implement greedy local constraints: at each generation step, they filter the vocabulary to tokens that maintain parser validity. However, this creates a fundamental issue—locally valid choices may lead to globally unreachable states where no sequence of future tokens can produce a valid parse.
+
+Consider JSON generation where the model generates `{"name": "value", "number":` and the next highest-probability token is a string literal, which is locally valid but may lead the model into a state where it cannot properly close nested structures. Current methods would allow this, potentially causing generation failure downstream.
+
+## Technical Approach
+
+### Core Mechanism: Grammar State Reachability Analysis
+
+Instead of simple validity checking, we propose maintaining a reachability graph for each parser state. For any given state S and remaining token budget B, we precompute or dynamically determine which terminal states are reachable within B steps.
+
+**Formal Definition:**
+### Computational Complexity Analysis
+**Time Complexity:**
+- Static precomputation: O(|S|² × D) where |S| is number of parser states, D is max depth
+- Dynamic lookahead: O(b^k) worst case where b is branching factor, k is lookahead depth
+- Incremental updates: O(|T| × k) where |T| is terminal vocabulary size
+**Space Complexity:**
+- Reachability table: O(|S| × D) for bounded grammars
+- Cache storage: O(|S| × k × C) where C is cache size
+- Parser state: O(D) for stack-based parsers
+**Grammar-Specific Bounds:**
+- Regular grammars: O(1) reachability check with DFA
+- LL(k) grammars: O(k) using predictive parsing tables
+- LR grammars: O(|S|) with precomputed goto tables
+- Ambiguous CFGs: O(b^k × A) where A is ambiguity factor
+
+
+### Lookahead Strategies
+
+**1. Static Reachability Precomputation**
+For bounded grammars (max depth D), precompute reachability tables offline:
+- Build state transition graph from grammar rules
+- For each state s and horizon h ∈ [1, D], compute π(s, h)
+- Runtime lookup: O(1) per token evaluation
+
+**2. Dynamic Lookahead with Memoization**
+For unbounded grammars, compute reachability on-demand:
+- Implement bounded DFS from current parser state
+- Cache results for (state, horizon) pairs
+- Prune search based on probability thresholds
+
+**3. Probabilistic Reachability Scoring**
+Instead of binary reachability, compute expected number of valid completions:
+- Weight completion paths by their likelihood under the base model
+- Use this as a continuous constraint rather than hard filtering
+- Allows graceful degradation when no perfect paths exist
+
+### Advanced Techniques
+
+**Multi-Step Beam Lookahead**
+Extend beam search to consider grammar constraints:
+```python
+for each beam candidate (sequence, parser_state, score):
+    for each possible next token:
+        compute new_parser_state
+        evaluate reachability(new_parser_state, remaining_budget)
+        adjust score based on reachability metric
+    maintain top-k beams by adjusted scores
+```
+
+**Adaptive Horizon Scheduling**
+Dynamically adjust lookahead depth based on parser state complexity:
+### Failure Mode Handling
+**No Reachable Paths:**
+When π(s, remaining_budget) = ∅, implement graceful degradation:
+```python
+def handle_no_reachable_paths(parser_state, context):
+    # Strategy 1: Backtrack to last viable state
+    if backtrack_possible:
+        return restore_previous_state()
+    # Strategy 2: Relax constraints progressively
+    for relaxation_level in range(1, MAX_RELAXATION):
+        relaxed_grammar = relax_grammar(original_grammar, relaxation_level)
+        if has_reachable_paths(parser_state, relaxed_grammar):
+            return use_relaxed_grammar()
+    # Strategy 3: Insert minimal valid completion
+    return insert_minimal_closing_sequence()
+```
+**Recovery Mechanisms:**
+- **Checkpoint-based recovery**: Save valid parser states periodically
+- **Grammar repair**: Insert minimal tokens to reach valid state
+- **Partial generation**: Return longest valid prefix with metadata
+- **Alternative paths**: Suggest top-k alternative continuations
+### Hybrid Generation Strategy
+Adaptively switch between constraint methods based on context:
+```python
+def select_constraint_method(grammar, parser_state, depth, resources):
+    if grammar.is_regular():
+        return use_dfa_constraints()
+    elif grammar.is_bounded() and grammar.size() < PRECOMPUTE_THRESHOLD:
+        return use_static_reachability()
+    elif depth > CRITICAL_DEPTH or parser_state.complexity() > COMPLEXITY_THRESHOLD:
+        return use_dynamic_lookahead(adaptive_horizon(parser_state))
+    elif resources.gpu_available() and batch_size > BATCH_THRESHOLD:
+        return use_parallel_beam_lookahead()
+    else:
+        return use_local_constraints()
+```
+
+
+## State-of-the-Art Model Integration
+
+### Transformer Architecture Modifications
+
+**Attention-Aware Grammar States**
+Modify attention mechanisms to incorporate grammar state information:
+- Add grammar state embeddings to attention key-value computations
+- Allow model to attend to parser stack history during generation
+- Train attention heads to specialize in grammar-relevant patterns
+
+**Grammar-Conditioned Layer Normalization**
+Introduce grammar state as conditioning information:
+- Add learned transformations based on current parser state
+- Enable model to adapt internal representations based on structural context
+- Particularly effective in later decoder layers where structural decisions are made
+
+### Integration with Mixture of Experts (MoE)
+
+**Grammar-Specialized Experts**
+Route tokens through experts based on grammar context:
+- Train separate expert networks for different grammar production rules
+- Use parser state to determine expert routing probabilities
+- Allows specialization without increasing base model parameters
+
+**Dynamic Expert Activation**
+Adjust expert activation patterns based on reachability constraints:
+- Boost experts associated with high-reachability continuations
+- Suppress experts that lead to low-reachability states
+- Implement during inference without model retraining
+
+### Speculative Decoding Enhancement
+
+**Grammar-Aware Draft Models**
+Enhance speculative decoding with grammar-aware draft generation:
+- Use smaller models fine-tuned specifically for grammar-constrained generation
+- Generate multiple draft continuations respecting reachability constraints
+- Verify drafts against both base model likelihood and grammar validity
+
+**Parallel Reachability Computation**
+Leverage speculative decoding infrastructure for lookahead:
+- Compute reachability analysis for multiple candidate continuations in parallel
+- Use draft model predictions to prioritize reachability computations
+- Amortize lookahead costs across multiple generation steps
+
+### Integration with Constitutional AI and RLHF
+
+**Grammar-Aware Reward Modeling**
+Incorporate structural validity into preference learning:
+- Train reward models that consider both semantic quality and structural correctness
+- Use grammar compliance as implicit reward signal during RLHF
+- Balance structural constraints with other alignment objectives
+
+**Constitutional Principles for Structure**
+Define constitutional principles that enforce structural coherence:
+### Training Integration
+**Reachability-Aware Fine-tuning**
+Incorporate grammar constraints during training:
+```python
+def compute_reachability_loss(logits, parser_states, horizons):
+    # Penalize tokens leading to low-reachability states
+    reachability_scores = batch_compute_reachability(parser_states, horizons)
+    return -torch.log(reachability_scores + epsilon).mean()
+def training_step(batch):
+    logits = model(batch.input_ids)
+    lm_loss = compute_lm_loss(logits, batch.labels)
+    # Add reachability loss for grammar-constrained samples
+    if batch.has_grammar_constraints:
+        reach_loss = compute_reachability_loss(
+            logits, batch.parser_states, batch.remaining_lengths
+        )
+        total_loss = lm_loss + lambda_reach * reach_loss
+    return total_loss
+```
+**Curriculum Learning for Grammar Complexity**
+```python
+def grammar_curriculum_schedule(epoch):
+    stages = [
+        (0, 10, "regular_grammars"),      # Simple finite automata
+        (10, 20, "context_free_ll1"),     # LL(1) grammars
+        (20, 30, "context_free_general"),  # General CFGs
+        (30, 40, "nested_structures"),     # Deeply nested grammars
+        (40, None, "mixed_constraints")    # Multiple simultaneous grammars
+    ]
+    for start, end, grammar_class in stages:
+        if start <= epoch < (end or float('inf')):
+            return grammar_class
+```
+**Grammar Internalization Objectives**
+- **Auxiliary prediction**: Predict next valid token sets
+- **Parser state prediction**: Predict parser state transitions
+- **Reachability estimation**: Predict reachability without explicit computation
+
+
+### Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) Integration
+
+**Grammar-Conditioned Retrieval**
+Enhance retrieval with structural context:
+- Use parser state and reachability analysis to guide document retrieval
+- Retrieve examples with similar structural patterns to current generation context
+- Weight retrieved content based on structural similarity
+
+**Template-Based Generation**
+Combine grammar lookahead with template retrieval:
+- Maintain database of valid structural templates
+- Use reachability analysis to select appropriate templates during generation
+- Fill templates using model's natural language capabilities
+
+### Efficient Implementation Strategies
+
+**KV-Cache Optimization**
+Optimize key-value caching for grammar-constrained generation:
+- Cache attention states conditioned on parser states
+- Implement efficient cache invalidation when parser state changes
+- Reduce computational overhead through selective cache updates
+
+**Quantization and Pruning**
+Apply model compression techniques while preserving grammar capabilities:
+- Identify and preserve parameters most critical for structural generation
+- Use knowledge distillation to maintain grammar awareness in compressed models
+- Implement structured pruning that respects grammar-relevant neurons
+
+**Hardware Acceleration**
+Design specialized kernels for grammar-constrained generation:
+- Implement reachability computation on GPU/TPU
+- Optimize parser state updates for parallel execution
+- Use tensor operations for batch grammar constraint evaluation
+
+## Implementation Architecture
+
+### Parser State Representation
+- Extend existing LR/LALR parsers with reachability metadata
+- Maintain parser stack + lookahead reachability table
+- Efficient state hashing for memoization
+
+### Token Filtering Pipeline
+1. **Base Model Forward Pass**: Compute logits for full vocabulary
+2. **Grammar Filtering**: Apply traditional local validity constraints
+3. **Reachability Analysis**: Evaluate lookahead for remaining candidates
+4. **Probability Adjustment**: Weight tokens by reachability scores
+5. **Sampling**: Use adjusted distribution for token selection
+
+### Memory Management
+- Bounded cache for reachability computations
+- LRU eviction based on parser state frequency
+- Compression strategies for large grammar state spaces
+
+## Evaluation Framework
+
+### Benchmarks
+- **Structured Data**: JSON, XML, YAML generation tasks
+- **Code Generation**: Python, JavaScript with syntax constraints
+- **Domain-Specific Languages**: SQL queries, configuration files
+- **Nested Structures**: Mathematical expressions, logical formulas
+
+### Metrics
+- **Success Rate**: Percentage of generations that parse successfully
+- **Efficiency**: Computational overhead vs. baseline methods
+- **Quality**: Semantic coherence of generated outputs (human eval)
+- **Diversity**: Entropy of generated structures within constraints
+
+### Baseline Comparisons
+### Detailed Evaluation Plan
+**Concrete Baselines and Datasets:**
+| Task | Dataset | Baseline Models | Metrics |
+|------|---------|----------------|---------|
+| JSON Generation | Schema.org (10K schemas) | GPT-4, Llama-2-70B, Mixtral-8x7B | Parse rate, schema compliance, inference time |
+| SQL Queries | Spider, WikiSQL | CodeLlama, StarCoder, SQLCoder | Execution accuracy, syntax validity |
+| Code Generation | HumanEval, MBPP | Codex, CodeGen, DeepSeek-Coder | Pass@k, AST validity |
+| Config Files | Kubernetes/Terraform specs | Base models + Guidance/Outlines | Validation rate, semantic correctness |
+**Expected Performance Improvements:**
+- Parse success rate: +15-25% over local constraints
+- Generation attempts before success: -60% reduction
+- Inference overhead: 20-40% increase (compensated by fewer retries)
+- Output diversity: Maintain 90%+ of unconstrained diversity
+**Ablation Study Design:**
+1. **Lookahead depth**: Vary k ∈ {1, 2, 4, 8, 16} and measure success/cost trade-off
+2. **Precomputation vs dynamic**: Compare strategies across grammar complexity levels
+3. **Probabilistic vs binary**: Evaluate soft vs hard reachability constraints
+4. **Hybrid switching**: Test adaptive strategy selection effectiveness
+5. **Cache size impact**: Vary cache limits and measure performance degradation
+### Incremental Reachability Updates
+Optimize reachability computation through incremental updates:
+```python
+class IncrementalReachabilityTracker:
+    def __init__(self, grammar):
+        self.grammar = grammar
+        self.reachability_cache = {}
+        self.transition_index = self._build_transition_index()
+    def update_reachability(self, old_state, new_token, old_reachability):
+        # Only recompute affected paths
+        new_state = self.grammar.transition(old_state, new_token)
+        # Reuse unchanged reachability information
+        affected_paths = self.transition_index.get_affected_paths(
+            old_state, new_token
+        )
+        new_reachability = old_reachability.copy()
+        for path in affected_paths:
+            new_reachability[path] = self._compute_path_reachability(
+                new_state, path
+            )
+        return new_reachability
+```
+
+
+## Research Questions
+
+1. **Scalability**: How does reachability computation scale with grammar complexity and lookahead depth?
+
+2. **Approximation Trade-offs**: What level of approximation in reachability analysis provides optimal cost/benefit?
+
+3. **Grammar Classes**: Which grammar classes benefit most from lookahead vs. local constraints?
+
+4. **Integration**: How does this approach interact with other generation constraints (length, semantic coherence)?
+
+5. **Learning**: Can models be fine-tuned to internalize grammar reachability, reducing the need for explicit lookahead?
+
+6. **SOTA Compatibility**: How do grammar constraints interact with modern techniques like speculative decoding and mixture of experts?
+7. **Multi-Grammar Coordination**: How to handle overlapping or conflicting grammar constraints efficiently?
+8. **Semantic-Syntax Integration**: Can we combine syntactic reachability with semantic validity checking?
+9. **Grammar Learning**: Can we infer grammars from examples when formal specifications are unavailable?
+
+
+## Expected Contributions
+
+- Novel theoretical framework for grammar-aware constrained generation with formal reachability analysis
+- Practical algorithms for efficient reachability computation compatible with transformer architectures
+- Integration strategies for state-of-the-art model techniques (MoE, speculative decoding, constitutional AI)
+- Comprehensive evaluation across diverse structured generation tasks with SOTA model comparisons
+- Open-source implementation compatible with major LLM frameworks (Transformers, vLLM, TensorRT-LLM)
+- Analysis of computational trade-offs and scaling characteristics for production deployment
+## Implementation Roadmap
+### Phase 1: MVP (Months 1-3)
+- Basic lookahead for JSON, YAML, simple DSLs
+- Integration with one major framework (Transformers)
+- Evaluation on standard benchmarks
+### Phase 2: Optimization (Months 4-6)
+- GPU-accelerated reachability computation
+- Incremental update algorithms
+- Advanced caching strategies
+- Multi-grammar support
+### Phase 3: SOTA Integration (Months 7-9)
+- Speculative decoding compatibility
+- MoE routing implementation
+- Training integration and fine-tuning recipes
+- Production-ready API design
+### Phase 4: Evaluation & Release (Months 10-12)
+- Comprehensive benchmarking
+- Documentation and tutorials
+- Open-source release
+- Community feedback integration
+
+
+This approach promises to significantly improve the reliability of structured LLM generation while maintaining compatibility with cutting-edge model architectures and training techniques, bridging the gap between traditional parsing methods and modern neural generation systems.