analiza aiqbench
This research evaluates how Small Language Models handle vehicle function calls, revealing that representing function schemas directly in the prompt enables generalization to unseen commands but incurs higher latency and memory costs compared to fixed functional tokens. The study demonstrates that for on-device automotive assistants, the choice of function-surface representation is more critical than simply increasing model scale, as it fundamentally dictates both capability and failure modes like hallucinating unavailable functions.
From Fixed Keys to Readable Schemas: Small Language Models for Vehicle Agent Function Calls
arXiv:2609.09476v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: In-vehicle assistants must translate natural-language requests into accurate vehicle function calls under strict memory and latency constraints, making small language models (SLMs) attractive for on-device deployment. For such models, a key design choice is how the available function surface is presented. Two approaches are to represent each function with a dedicated Functional Token (FT) or provide function schemas directly in the prompt. FTs enable compact inference but are restricted to functions learned during training, whereas Schema-in-Prompt (SIP) can generalize to unseen functions at the cost of longer prompts and higher inference overhead. We introduce a benchmark of 9,822 single-turn examples spanning 79 vehicle functions derived from Android Automotive, including held-out functions and requests requiring refusal. We compare both approaches under matched fine-tuning across four SLMs from 270M to 1.7B parameters. On functions seen during training, scaling provides limited benefit: the 270M model can match the 1.7B model, while the strongest overall performance occurs at 0.6B. On held-out functions, FT achieves zero accuracy by construction, whereas SIP generalizes and improves substantially with scale. On out-of-scope requests, FT can invoke an unavailable function it was trained to emit, while SIP more reliably refuses based on the functions offered. This flexibility comes with higher memory use and latency. Our theoretical analysis explains how SIP enables generalization and why longer schema contexts increase inference cost. Overall, function-surface representation, rather than model scale alone, determines the capabilities and failure modes of SLM-based vehicle function calling.
Abstract:In-vehicle assistants must translate natural-language requests into accurate vehicle function calls under strict memory and latency constraints, making small language models (SLMs) attractive for on-device deployment. For such models, a key design choice is how the available function surface is presented. Two approaches are to represent each function with a dedicated Functional Token (FT) or provide function schemas directly in the prompt. FTs enable compact inference but are restricted to functions learned during training, whereas Schema-in-Prompt (SIP) can generalize to unseen functions at the cost of longer prompts and higher inference overhead. We introduce a benchmark of 9,822 single-turn examples spanning 79 vehicle functions derived from Android Automotive, including held-out functions and requests requiring refusal. We compare both approaches under matched fine-tuning across four SLMs from 270M to 1.7B parameters. On functions seen during training, scaling provides limited benefit: the 270M model can match the 1.7B model, while the strongest overall performance occurs at 0.6B. On held-out functions, FT achieves zero accuracy by construction, whereas SIP generalizes and improves substantially with scale. On out-of-scope requests, FT can invoke an unavailable function it was trained to emit, while SIP more reliably refuses based on the functions offered. This flexibility comes with higher memory use and latency. Our theoretical analysis explains how SIP enables generalization and why longer schema contexts increase inference cost. Overall, function-surface representation, rather than model scale alone, determines the capabilities and failure modes of SLM-based vehicle function calling.
Machine Learning (cs.LG); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2609.09476 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2609.09476v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.09476 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 341 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe
[AINews] Meta Muse Wonder & Wonder Full: MSL’s Claude 5.5-tier Frontier Model
Latent Space · 13 oct. 2026
Translating CUDA Tile Operations from Python to Rust Using Agentic AI
NVIDIA · 16 sept. 2026
Model-agnostic PII detection with LLMs
AWS · 10 sept. 2026
[AINews] The Future of Latent Space
Latent Space · 25 sept. 2026