Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

SEAL: Suite for Evaluating API-use of LLMs

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

arxiv 2409.15523 v1 pith:6O75W2XM submitted 2024-09-23 cs.AI

classification cs.AI
keywords llmssealbenchmarksreal-timeapi-useapisinstabilityreal-world
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Large language models (LLMs) have limitations in handling tasks that require real-time access to external APIs. While several benchmarks like ToolBench and APIGen have been developed to assess LLMs' API-use capabilities, they often suffer from issues such as lack of generalizability, limited multi-step reasoning coverage, and instability due to real-time API fluctuations. In this paper, we introduce SEAL, an end-to-end testbed designed to evaluate LLMs in real-world API usage. SEAL standardizes existing benchmarks, integrates an agent system for testing API retrieval and planning, and addresses the instability of real-time APIs by introducing a GPT-4-powered API simulator with caching for deterministic evaluations. Our testbed provides a comprehensive evaluation pipeline that covers API retrieval, API calls, and final responses, offering a reliable framework for structured performance comparison in diverse real-world scenarios. SEAL is publicly available, with ongoing updates for new benchmarks.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. DICE-BENCH: Evaluating the Tool-Use Capabilities of Large Language Models in Multi-Round, Multi-Party Dialogues

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A new benchmark and metric show that large language models still struggle to call tools when the needed details are scattered across multi-party, multi-round group dialogues.

  2. RAG Strategies for Natural Language-Based SQL Query and REST API Call Generation

    cs.SE 2026-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    In a 631-case enterprise benchmark, iterative retrieval (CoRAG) achieved 10.29% exact match vs 7.45% for standard RAG on combined SQL/API generation with hybrid documentation, while no-RAG gives 0% exact match.

Pith tools