How You Spell the Answer Matters More Than How Short It Is: Output Format Silently Controls Small-Model Parsing Errors

Sub-billion LLMs fine-tuned for semantic parsing fail silently when they emit valid-looking but wrong trees. This paper shows the encoding format — not its length — is the main lever.

Imagine you're training a new barista. You could hand them a laminated cheat sheet written in dense shorthand — "ESP.DBL.OAT.NS" — or you could write plain English: "double espresso, oat milk, no sugar." Both encode the same order. The shorthand is shorter, but when the barista gets it wrong, they get it wrong confidently, and you can't tell from the ticket. That's the core mechanism here: the format you choose for the model's output target silently controls how often it produces plausible-but-wrong parses, and shorter isn't better — more natural is. The committed claim: for sub-billion parameter models doing semantic parsing, switching the target encoding from an s-expression tree to plain English words — same information, lossless — cuts silent errors by up to 2.3× while also using 4.1× fewer tokens. Length reduction alone doesn't help. Surface naturalness does. This is tested on Qwen3.5-0.8B and LFM2.5-350M across six encodings of the PIZZA ordering benchmark, with 300 training runs spanning five data pool sizes and five seeds. The experimental design is notably careful for a small-model fine-tuning paper. Six encodings are organized so two matched-length pairs isolate surface form from token count. The statistical machinery — hierarchical bootstrap with Holm correction — was fixed before results were read, a pre-registration-adjacent move that raises integrity above the typical ablation study. The key finding: the word-based encoding hits 87.5% exact match on Qwen (vs. 85.8% for the native s-expression), while the shortest encoding actually underperforms. Error analysis pins much of the gain on negation handling — the model is less likely to silently drop a "no" when it's writing in words rather than nested brackets. Where this sits on the ladder: there's no single dominant prior-art baseline for "output format effects on small-model semantic parsing" because the question itself is underexplored. The implicit baseline is the common practice of using the target formalism's native syntax (here, s-expressions). The paper beats that practice by ~1.7 points exact match on Qwen and shows the effect holds across both models and all data regimes. This isn't a SOTA-chasing paper; it's an experimental design paper that names a variable most practitioners ignore. The architecture story is straightforward: LoRA fine-tuning on sub-billion autoregressive transformers, which is exactly where the question bites hardest. Larger models may be robust to format choice; smaller ones clearly aren't, and edge deployment is where small models live. The paper's real contribution is methodological: it provides the controlled experiment that separates token count from surface naturalness, which prior work conflated. The integrity profile is strong for what it is. Pre-specified statistical correction, code released, 300 runs with variance reported. The main limitation is benchmark scope: PIZZA is one domain (food ordering), and the six encodings, while well-chosen, are all lossless representations of the same tree. The paper doesn't test lossy or ambiguous formats. The obvious next experiment — running this on a second domain or a structured output task like SQL or API calls — wasn't done. My read: this is a first paper from what looks like an applied team; they scoped tight and executed clean, and the second domain is the next paper. A practical takeaway engineers can use Monday morning: if you're fine-tuning a small model to produce structured output, don't default to the target schema's native syntax. Try a natural-language encoding first. You may get better accuracy AND lower latency. The silent-error finding is the urgent one — a well-formed but wrong parse won't trigger any downstream validator, so you won't know you have a problem until a user complains.