The DOI matches its DataCite record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
AGDecode: Semantic Attribute Grammar Derivatives for Safety-Constrained Decoding of Large Language Models
Open accessAbstract
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for code generation, motivating techniques that guarantee the structural and semantic correctness of generated programs. Constrained decoding enforces correctness during generation by restricting token choices to those that admit at least one valid completion. While existing approaches can enforce syntactic constraints and selected semantic properties such as type safety, they either target specific properties or rely on operational pruning mechanisms that are difficult to generalize to data-dependent, inductive program properties. We present AGDecode, a programmable framework for semantic constrained decoding based on least-fixed-point semantics. AGDecode extends attribute grammars to partially constructed syntax trees, and reduces semantic constrained decoding to a realizability problem over such trees. The framework compiles semantic specifications into systems of relational constraints that are discharged by external verification oracles, such as SMT and CHC solvers, cleanly separating language semantics from constraint-solving machinery. We prove that our approach is sound and complete relative to an ideal verification oracle. In practice, solvers inevitably encounter uncertain queries; conservatively, our system can reject tokens for soundness or speculatively continue to generate until later queries resolve the entire generation. We mechanize the core metatheory in Rocq and evaluate the framework on semantic-constrained generation of C programs, enforcing path-sensitive safety properties including null-pointer safety, division-by-zero freedom, and initialized-variable usage. Our results demonstrate that solver-backed semantic constrained decoding can enforce rich semantic guarantees while incurring modest computational overhead at regular program boundaries.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Grammar-Constrained Decoding for Structured NLP Tasks without Finetuning
Geng, S., Josifoski, M., Peyrard, M., & West, R. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.674 · Cited by 74
Flagged first, then by citations
Metadata
- Authors
- Maghera, R., Arya, A. T., Babikian, A. A., Chechik, M., & Dehnavi, M. M.
- Affiliations
- University of Toronto (CA)
- McGill University (CA)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2026
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2610.36105
- OpenAlex
- W7224137476
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Logic, programming, and type systems
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Software Testing and Debugging Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Formal Methods in Verification
- Keywords
- large language models, attribute grammars, realizability, code generation, SMT solvers, Coq, soundness and completeness, C programs
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review