REVIEW 2 cited by
ShortcutsBench: A Large-Scale Real-world Benchmark for API-based Agents
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
abstract
Recent advancements in integrating large language models (LLMs) with application programming interfaces (APIs) have gained significant interest in both academia and industry. Recent work demonstrates that these API-based agents exhibit relatively strong autonomy and planning capabilities. However, their ability to handle multi-dimensional difficulty levels, diverse task types, and real-world demands remains unknown. In this paper, we introduce \textsc{ShortcutsBench}, a large-scale benchmark for the comprehensive evaluation of API-based agents in solving real-world complex tasks. \textsc{ShortcutsBench} includes a wealth of real APIs from Apple Inc., refined user queries, human-annotated high-quality action sequences, detailed parameter filling values, and parameters requesting necessary input from the system or user. We revealed how existing benchmarks~/~datasets struggle to accommodate the advanced reasoning capabilities of existing more intelligent LLMs. Moreover, our extensive evaluation of agents built with $5$ leading open-source (size $\geq$ 57B) and $5$ closed-source LLMs (e.g. Gemini-1.5-Pro and GPT-4o-mini) with varying intelligence level reveals significant limitations of existing API-based agents in the whole process of handling complex queries related to API selection, parameter filling, and requesting necessary input from the system and the user. These findings highlight the great challenges that API-based agents face in effectively fulfilling real and complex user queries. All datasets, code, experimental logs, and results are available at \url{https://github.com/EachSheep/ShortcutsBench}.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
How Far Are AI Scientists from Changing the World?
This survey proposes a four-level capability framework for AI Scientist systems and, using an AI reviewer, finds that current systems produce papers rated well below normal scientific standards.
-
AI Scientists Fail Without Strong Implementation Capability
AI scientist systems can propose ideas but cannot reliably implement and verify experiments, making the implementation gap, not idea generation, the current bottleneck.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.