Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

ToolComp: A Multi-Tool Reasoning & Process Supervision Benchmark

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 2501.01290 v1 pith:FYUJEEJC submitted 2025-01-02 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords reasoningmodelsevaluationtool-usetoolcompcomplexfinalmulti-step
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Despite recent advances in AI, the development of systems capable of executing complex, multi-step reasoning tasks involving multiple tools remains a significant challenge. Current benchmarks fall short in capturing the real-world complexity of tool-use reasoning, where verifying the correctness of not only the final answer but also the intermediate steps is important for evaluation, development, and identifying failures during inference time. To bridge this gap, we introduce ToolComp, a comprehensive benchmark designed to evaluate multi-step tool-use reasoning. ToolComp is developed through a collaboration between models and human annotators, featuring human-edited/verified prompts, final answers, and process supervision labels, allowing for the evaluation of both final outcomes and intermediate reasoning. Evaluation across six different model families demonstrates the challenging nature of our dataset, with the majority of models achieving less than 50% accuracy. Additionally, we generate synthetic training data to compare the performance of outcome-supervised reward models (ORMs) with process-supervised reward models (PRMs) to assess their ability to improve complex tool-use reasoning as evaluated by ToolComp. Our results show that PRMs generalize significantly better than ORMs, achieving a 19% and 11% improvement in rank@1 accuracy for ranking base and fine-tuned model trajectories, respectively. These findings highlight the critical role of process supervision in both the evaluation and training of AI models, paving the way for more robust and capable systems in complex, multi-step tool-use tasks.

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.

  1. BigFinanceBench: A Workflow-Grounded Benchmark for Financial-Research Agents

    cs.AI 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    BigFinanceBench is a workflow-grounded benchmark of 928 financial research tasks with point-weighted rubrics, where the best of ten tested agents scores 58.8% on derivation quality.

  2. ToolPRM: Fine-Grained Inference Scaling of Structured Outputs for Function Calling

    cs.AI 2025-10 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    ToolPRM provides fine-grained intra-call process supervision via a new dataset and reward model, outperforming outcome and coarse-grained alternatives on function-calling benchmarks.

Pith tools