Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies

Parsed, Plausible, Wrong: Output Format Controls Silent Errors in Small-Model Semantic Parsing

Umar Ahmed, Maxim Dunaev, Mohammad Nour Al Awad, Sergey Ivanov, Ivan KhodnenkoPublished Nov 12, 2026
arXiv PDF
Researcher verdict
Context only
Use as context only
Benchmark evidence
Missing
Not verified yet
Time to first repro
A few days
Plan setup time
Risk flags
2
Review before use

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

Freshness tier: warm
A small fine-tuned parser that emits a well-formed but wrong tree fails silently: nothing downstream can tell.

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.

Implementation evidence summary
Confidence: low

Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.

Reproduction risks
  • Estimate is based on paper-only reproduction flow

Reproduction readiness

Time to first repro: days
Last checked: Nov 14, 2026

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.

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

Evaluation and human feedback data

Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.

Open in HFEPX
Explore similar papers

Jump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.