From Hallucination to Structure Snowballing: The Alignment Tax of Constrained Decoding in LLM Reflection
On the map: LLM reasoning → Test-time compute and efficient thinking
Abstract (arXiv)
Intrinsic self-correction in Large Language Models (LLMs) frequently fails in open-ended reasoning tasks due to ``hallucination snowballing,'' a phenomenon in which models recursively justify early errors during free-text reflection. While structured feedback can mitigate this issue, existing approaches often rely on externally trained critics or symbolic tools, reducing agent autonomy. This study investigates whether enforcing structured reflection purely through Outlines-based constrained decoding can disrupt error propagation without additional training. Evaluating an 8-billion-parameter model (Qwen3-8B), we show that simply imposing structural constraints does not improve self-correction performance. Instead, it triggers a new failure mode termed ``structure snowballing.'' We find that the cognitive load required to satisfy strict formatting rules pushes the model into formatting traps. This observation helps explain why the agent achieves near-perfect superficial syntactic alignment yet fails to detect or resolve deeper semantic errors. These findings expose an ``alignment tax'' inherent to constrained decoding, highlighting a tension between structural granularity and internal model capacity in autonomous workflows. Code and raw logs are available in the GitHub repository: https://github.com/hongxuzhou/agentic_llm_structured_self_critique.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Test-time compute and efficient thinking, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 15 of its 15 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 7 Apr 2026.
Builds on
15 of 15 references.
Closest ancestors · 6
Same direction, newest first
- 2023LLMs cannot find reasoning errors, but can correct them given the error location14 Nov
- 2023MAF: Multi-Aspect Feedback for Improving Reasoning in Large Language Models19 Oct
- 2023Large Language Models Cannot Self-Correct Reasoning Yet3 Oct
- 2023Tree of Thoughts: Deliberate Problem Solving with Large Language Models17 May
- 2023REFINER: Reasoning Feedback on Intermediate Representations4 Apr
- 2023Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback30 Mar
Other references · 9
- 2025Qwen3 Technical Reportcited by 8,820
- 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,626
- 2023Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learningcited by 4,276
- 2018HotpotQA: A Dataset for Diverse, Explainable Multi-hop Question Answeringcited by 3,754
- 2023How Language Model Hallucinations Can Snowballcited by 311
- 2023Efficient Guided Generation for Large Language Modelscited by 200
- 2022ROSCOE: A Suite of Metrics for Scoring Step-by-Step Reasoningcited by 177
- 2019Compositional Questions Do Not Necessitate Multi-hop Reasoningcited by 88
- 2025Decomposing LLM Self-Correction: The Accuracy-Correction Paradox and Error Depth Hypothesiscited by 8
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Constrained Decoding Eliminates Structural Failures in Small LLMs but Reveals a Scale-Dependent Semantic Gap
- 2026Thinking Before Constraining: A Unified Decoding Framework for Large Language Models
- 2026The Alignment Paradox: How Post-Training Amplifies Confident Hallucinations in Language Models
- 2026Listen to the Layers: Mitigating Hallucinations with Inter-Layer Disagreement
- 2024Internal Consistency and Self-Feedback in Large Language Models: A Survey
- 2025Self-Correcting Large Language Models: Generation vs. Multiple Choice
- 2026Encoded but Not Actionable: Auditing the Decode-Generate-Steer Gap in Frozen LLMs for Geometric Constraints
- 2025Self-Correction Bench: Uncovering and Addressing the Self-Correction Blind Spot in Large Language Models