Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies

HFEPX · Eval paper review

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

Umar Ahmed, Maxim Dunaev, Mohammad Nour Al Awad, Sergey Ivanov +1 more

Published

Nov 12, 2026

Citations

0

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 (Low)

Extraction confidence

35% (Low)

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Rater population

Not reported

Signals refreshed

Nov 12, 2026

Open arXiv Find implementation Shortlist (0) RSS feed

Tags

Automatic Metrics

Should you rely on this paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

What to verify

Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Human feedback signal
Not explicit
Not explicit in abstract metadata
Evaluation signal
Detected
Eval setup described
Usefulness for eval research
0/100
Adjacent candidate

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here

Human Eval Papers LLM-as-Judge Papers Pairwise Preference Papers Tool-Use Evaluation Search

Abstract

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.

What we could verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

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

Evaluation Modes

partial

Automatic Metrics

Includes extracted eval setup.

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

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

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

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

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

Reported Metrics

partial

Exact match

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

"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."

Benchmarks and datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported metrics

exact match
Human feedback details
Uses human feedback
No
Feedback types
None
Rater population
Not reported
Expertise required
General
Evaluation details
Evaluation modes
Automatic Metrics
Agentic eval
None
Quality controls
Not reported
Evidence quality
Low
Use this page as
Background context only

Research brief

Metadata summary

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

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key takeaways

  • 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.

Researcher actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Check the full text for explicit evaluation design choices (raters, protocol, and metrics).
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended queries

Contribution summary

  • 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.

Why it matters for eval

  • 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…

Researcher checklist

  • Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Automatic Metrics

  • Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Metric reporting is present

    Detected: exact match