Parsed, Plausible, Wrong: Output Format Controls Silent Errors in Small-Model Semantic Parsing
Abstract
Domain fit: Niche / domain-specific · No strong AI-core implementation/artifact signals were detected from current providers.
A small fine-tuned parser that emits a well-formed but wrong tree fails silently: nothing downstream can tell. We ask whether the output format, a free design choice, controls how often this happens. On the PIZZA ordering benchmark we fine-tune two sub-billion models (Qwen3.5-0.8B and LFM2.5-350M) with LoRA on six lossless encodings of the same target tree, from 44.3 down to 10.9 tokens per order, including two matched-length pairs that vary surface form at fixed length. Across 300 runs (5 training pool sizes, 5 seeds) with a hierarchical bootstrap and Holm correction fixed before the results were read, shortening alone never helps, but writing the target in ordinary words does. The word encoding is the most accurate format on both models (87.5% vs. 85.8% exact match for the native s-expression on Qwen) while emitting 4.1x fewer tokens, and it cuts the silent error rate by 2.3x on Qwen and 1.8x on LFM2, separating at every pool size. Error analysis locates much of the gain in negation. All runs also learn to refuse off-menu input (held out: 95.9-99.0% handled) and to apply in-utterance self-corrections. Strict refusal has a measured price: 2.1-10.1% of real, mostly polite, orders are refused.
Results and benchmarks
A small fine-tuned parser that emits a well-formed but wrong tree fails silently: nothing downstream can tell.
Benchmark evidence is limited
Evidence graph: 2 refs, 1 links.
Utility signals: depth 60/100, grounding 58/100, status medium.
Implementation
No direct implementation yet
Maintained implementation evidence is not confirmed for this paper yet.
Use the implementation status and reproduction sections for the current action plan.
No verified maintained repo yet
There is no verified maintained implementation yet. Use this baseline plan to decide whether to prototype now or defer.
- No direct maintained implementation was found. Use the paper PDF and citation graph to design a baseline reproduction.
- Start from this likely method family: LoRA / Parameter-efficient tuning.
- Track assumptions and missing details in an experiment log before coding.
Time to first repro: a few days
Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.
- Estimate is based on paper-only reproduction flow
Reproduction readiness
No repo
No verified implementation available
- No maintained repository has been identified for this paper. Check adjacent implementations or HF artifacts below.
Hardware requirements
- Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.
Validation caveat
Hugging Face artifacts
No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet. Use targeted searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.
Tip: start with models, then check datasets and spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.
Research context
Tasks
None detected
Methods
LoRA / Parameter-efficient tuning
Domains
None detected
Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.
Open in HFEPXJump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.