mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Gauge dependence and structured-output corruption in sign-branched repetition penalties: measurements across models, inference stacks, and alternative repetition controls

arXiv 2607.09791 ↗First posted 9 Jul 2026cs.LG cs.CLcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

The multiplicative repetition penalty shipped across the LLM inference ecosystem (HuggingFace, vLLM, llama.cpp, and a dozen further engines) branches on the sign of each raw logit (divide positives by theta, multiply negatives). But the softmax is unchanged by adding a constant to every logit, so a model's logit zero-point is arbitrary (a gauge choice), and the sign-branch reads it. Two measurable consequences follow. (1) The penalty is not well-defined: re-centering a model's logits by a constant is a provable no-op at theta=1, yet at a routine theta=1.3 it changes 58-96% of greedy tokens, while subtractive and normalized penalties change none; real checkpoints sit at widely different zero-points, so a fixed repetitionpenalty is a different operation on every model. (2) It corrupts structured output: on 200 real-world JSON schemas, theta=1.3 drops the rate of valid, schema-conformant output from 97% to 23%. Applying the penalty to normalized log-probabilities instead of raw logits removes the gauge dependence by construction; HuggingFace's beam search has applied its processor chain, penalty included, to log-probabilities since at least v4.0.0, so repetitionpenalty already names two different operators depending on decoding strategy. Because equal theta is not equal strength across the two operators, we also compare them at matched suppression, calibrated per model by search: there the normalized operator is statistically no worse on any quality metric measured, but on four of seven models it cannot match the raw operator's suppression at theta >= 1.15, and on six of seven at theta=1.3, the setting where the corruption was measured. This note gives the mechanism, the measurements (five models up to 7B; two code models; both effects replicated inside vLLM and llama.cpp through their own samplers), the per-model calibration map, and the normalized variant.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 5 of its 8 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 9 Jul 2026.

Builds on

5 of 8 references.

References · 5

  1. 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,320
  2. 2016Pointer Sentinel Mixture Modelscited by 3,096
  3. 2019CTRL: A Conditional Transformer Language Model for Controllable Generationcited by 762
  4. 2022A Contrastive Framework for Neural Text Generationcited by 225
  5. 2025JSONSchemaBench: A Rigorous Benchmark of Structured Outputs for Language Modelscited by 71

Built on by

Not cited yet.