Joint or Per-Option? Compact Encoders for Closed-Set Decisions from 17 Million to 1 Billion Parameters

Many language-model pipelines end in a closed-set decision, such as selecting a tool. Prompting a large language model for it is slow and order-sensitive. We ask how small an encoder for such decisions can be and whether it should read the options jointly or separately. In a three-seed study at 32 million parameters, per-option scoring beats joint scoring on a held-out sample of a 37-benchmark decision suite by 5.8 points of chance-corrected skill at matched optimizer steps and by 2.8 at approximately matched training compute; two external benchmarks agree, though not significantly on their unseen tasks. Crossing reader with initialisation shows that the advantage requires a reranker init...

<iframe src="https://silytics.si/embed/item/3ab99b4f-0603-43d0-8322-c10674034881" width="420" height="190" style="border:0" loading="lazy" title="Silytics entry"></iframe>

Silytics shows public metadata from arXiv and links to the original. Information may be incomplete or out of date. Last refreshed 9 November 2026. Licenses and terms of the original apply to the work itself. Not financial, legal or professional advice.