# From Fixed Keys to Readable Schemas: Small Language Models for Vehicle Agent Function Calls

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.09476 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.09476/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Tool learning and function calling, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 25 of its 33 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 8 Sep 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Tool learning and function calling](https://mlsanity.com/agents/tool-learning-and-function-calling/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 25 of 25)

- [Attention Is All You Need](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.03762/) (2017)
- [Language Models are Few-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.14165/) (2020)
- [LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.09685/) (2021)
- [Rethinking the Role of Demonstrations: What Makes In-Context Learning Work?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2202.12837/) (2022)
- [What Makes Good In-Context Examples for GPT-3?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2101.06804/) (2021)
- [Fantastically Ordered Prompts and Where to Find Them: Overcoming Few-Shot Prompt Order Sensitivity](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2104.08786/) (2021)
- [An Explanation of In-context Learning as Implicit Bayesian Inference](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2111.02080/) (2021)
- [Selective Classification for Deep Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1705.08500/) (2017)
- [Efficient Transformers: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.06732/) (2020)
- [Transformers learn in-context by gradient descent](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.07677/) (2022)
- [What learning algorithm is in-context learning? Investigations with linear models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.15661/) (2022)
- [Learning To Retrieve Prompts for In-Context Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2112.08633/) (2021)
- [DriveLM: Driving with Graph Visual Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.14150/) (2023)
- [Prompt Cache: Modular Attention Reuse for Low-Latency Inference](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.04934/) (2023)
- [ToolkenGPT: Augmenting Frozen Language Models with Massive Tools via Tool Embeddings](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.11554/) (2023)
- [Efficient Guided Generation for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.09702/) (2023)
- [Grammar-Constrained Decoding for Structured NLP Tasks without Finetuning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.13971/) (2023)
- [Talk2Car: Taking Control of Your Self-Driving Car](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1909.10838/) (2019)
- [xLAM: A Family of Large Action Models to Empower AI Agent Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.03215/) (2024)
- [TinyAgent: Function Calling at the Edge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.00608/) (2024)
- [Hammer: Robust Function-Calling for On-Device Language Models via Function Masking](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.04587/) (2024)
- [Personalized Autonomous Driving with Large Language Models: Field Experiments](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.09397/) (2023)
- [Octopus v2: On-device language model for super agent](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.01744/) (2024)
- [An Information-Theoretic Analysis of In-Context Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.15530/) (2024)
- [Optimizing Small Language Models for In-Vehicle Function-Calling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.02342/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

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, and the highest Seen accuracy in our main grid 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 a higher inference cost, chiefly the latency of processing the schema prompt. Our theoretical analysis formalizes why only SIP can predict functions withheld as training targets 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.