Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 53 references

PredAct-Bench: Benchmarking Tool-Augmented Dialogue under Controlled Tool Noise

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Current LLM agents fail to give instructors calibrated trust in noisy prediction tools: a new benchmark shows most models over-rely on imperfect tools, while humans calibrate correctly.

desk verdict Useful benchmark, conditional headline: the LLM final-decision prompt's default-to-no_flag rule likely manufactures part of the low-RAIR/high-RSR cluster, so the human-vs-LLM calibrated-quadrant claim needs a matched-instruction rerun. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.02372 v1 pith:3UIXGXVT submitted 2026-08-03 cs.CL

Abdulrahman AlRabah , Xiaocheng Yang , Dilek Hakkani-Tür , Abdussalam Alawini This is my paper
classification cs.CL
keywords tool-augmenteddialoguecontrolledtoolnoisetrustcalibrationRAIRRSRat-riskpredictionhuman-AIdecisionmakingbenchmark
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper introduces PREDACTBENCH, a benchmark in which an LLM assistant uses a deliberately noisy predictor of student-at-risk status to help an instructor decide which students to flag, over multiple dialogue turns. Its central finding is that state-of-the-art LLM instructors fail to calibrate their trust in the imperfect tool: 11 of 13 models cluster at extremely low RAIR (they almost never revise an initial wrong call toward a correct agent suggestion) and near-ceiling RSR (they almost always stick with their own correct calls), while human instructors land in the calibrated quadrant (RAIR 0.63, RSR 0.88). The chat phase actively degrades decision quality for 10 of 13 LLM instructors, and the paper argues that evaluating agents against perfect tools rewards wholesale acceptance of tool output, so controlled tool noise is a precondition for measuring the trust-calibration capability that real deployments need.

What carries the argument

The core mechanism is a k-nearest-neighbor predictor over historical student trajectories whose outputs are deliberately flipped to hit target accuracy levels (40–80%), placing noise inside the toolchain while deterministic lookup and counterfactual tools remain exact. The evaluation hinges on two episode-level trust-calibration metrics: RAIR (Relative AI-Improvement Rate), the rate at which an initially wrong instructor revises toward a correct agent suggestion, and RSR (Relative Self-Reliance), the rate at which an initially correct instructor resists a wrong agent suggestion. These extend prior one-shot trust-calibration metrics to multi-turn dialogue.

What would settle it

Remove the 'If you never gathered evidence, default to no_flag' instruction from the Final Decision Prompt given to LLM instructors (or add the same instruction to the human participants' task) and re-run the 1,300 episodes. If the LLM cluster moves out of the RAIR<0.20/RSR>0.97 region, the reported gap is an artifact of asymmetric instructions; if it persists, the claim about model capability withstands the check.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

When tool predictions are deliberately calibrated to 40–80% accuracy, current LLM instructors largely echo the tool: they rarely update toward correct agent advice (RAIR below 0.20 for 11 of 13 models) and almost never abandon their own correct calls (RSR above 0.97 for 10 of 13), a pattern the paper describes as over-reliance or deference. Dialogue itself reduces F1 for 10 of 13 LLM instructors, with the largest drops on smaller models (GPT-5.4 Mini −11.0, Qwen 3.5 9B −8.5). Human instructors, though reaching similar F1, show calibrated reliance and occupy the RAIR–RSR quadrant alone. The paper argues that this contrast is invisible in F1 alone and emerges only when noise is placed inside t

Load-bearing premise

The benchmark's central human-vs-LLM contrast assumes the instructions given to LLM 'instructors' and to human participants are behaviorally equivalent, but the LLM prompt contains a default-to-no_flag rule that humans never receive; if that rule, rather than model capability, produces the low-RAIR/high-RSR cluster, the main finding collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • F1 alone cannot distinguish an agent that earns its score through selective verification from one that inherits it through deference; RAIR/RSR reveal the difference.
  • As predictor accuracy rises from 40% to 80%, LLM instructor F1 improves by 37 points on PREDACT-CS and 19 points on OULAD, so tool reliability is a first-order driver of decision quality.
  • Dialogue can actively hurt decisions: 10 of 13 LLM instructors lose F1 during the chat phase, and the failure mode is dialogue-induced over-trust that overrides initially correct calls.
  • The benchmark is released as a diagnostic instrument rather than a leaderboard, so future agents can be graded on where they sit in the RAIR–RSR plane.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the instruction asymmetry identified in Appendix A.1 is the cause of the low-RAIR/high-RSR cluster—LLMs are told to default to no_flag when no evidence is gathered, humans are not—then the central human-vs-LLM contrast may be partly a prompt artifact rather than a pure capability gap; matching instructions across conditions would test this.
  • The same noisy-tool-plus-reliance-metrics recipe could transfer to clinical or financial decision support, but the validity of the comparison in those domains depends on removing the instruction asymmetry and on having commensurable human baselines.
  • The paper's ablations show that the dialogue-induced over-trust pattern is more pronounced without calibration, which suggests that the phenomenon is not an artifact of the noise-injection procedure.
  • A testable extension would be to sweep target accuracies above 80% and at the extremes of confidence miscalibration, since the failure cases cluster at high accuracy where each dismissed flag is most costly.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces PREDACT-Bench, a benchmark for evaluating tool-augmented dialogue agents under controlled tool noise in an educational decision-support setting. The benchmark uses a k-NN grade predictor with calibrated noise injection, 12 tools, and two datasets (OULAD and PREDACT-CS). The authors evaluate 13 LLM instructors and 13 human instructors/teaching assistants, measuring decision quality (F1), trust calibration (RAIR/RSR), and dialogue behavior. The central claim is that current LLM instructors fail to provide reliable visibility under noisy tools: 10 of 13 models degrade F1 during dialogue, most LLMs cluster at low RAIR and high RSR, and only humans occupy the calibrated quadrant. The paper also provides detailed reproducibility materials, ablations, and a human study, and releases the benchmark publicly.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the benchmark addresses a real gap: existing agent benchmarks largely assume oracle tools, whereas deployed decision support must handle noisy predictions and human trust calibration. The paper has notable strengths: controlled noise injection with explicit calibration, ECE/Brier validation of the predictor, two robustness ablations (held-out generalization and uncalibrated predictor), and an unusually transparent appendix covering prompts, seeds, costs, and failure cases. The RAIR/RSR extension to multi-turn dialogue is a useful methodological contribution. However, the headline human-vs-LLM contrast is currently undermined by a prompt asymmetry and by non-commensurable human/LLM decision sets. The central claim is defensible in principle, but it needs re-analysis before it can be accepted as stated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix A.1; Section 5, Figure 2] The Final Decision Prompt tells LLM instructors: 'If you never gathered evidence for a student, default to no_flag — do not keep someone flagged just because the agent did.' No equivalent rule is reported for human participants. Because RAIR and RSR are computed only over agent-flagged students, this default mechanically lowers RAIR (when the instructor was initially wrong and the agent was right, the default prevents a final correction) and raises RSR (when the instructor was initially right and the agent was wrong, the default preserves the correct no_flag). The LLM cluster at RAIR<0.2/RSR>0.97 in Figure 2 may therefore be a prompt artifact rather than a model-capability finding. The failure-mode analysis in A.10 (collapse to all no_flag after chat) is consistent with instruction-following. The central human-vs-LLM 'calibrated quadrant' conclusion requires re-running without the defaul
  2. [Section 4.2, Appendix D, Table 15] The no-agent human baseline asks participants to select at-risk students from the full class, whereas all agent conditions restrict decisions to 5 pre-flagged students. The reported baseline F1 of 89.0 is therefore not commensurable with the 55–56 F1 values in agent conditions; the baseline and the agent conditions differ in decision set, class prevalence, and available evidence. The claim that 'humans score 55–56, comparable to mid-tier LLM instructors, while the no-agent baseline reaches 89.0' is hard to interpret. A controlled baseline on the same 5-student display is needed to support any statement about the incremental value of the AI assistant, or the comparison should be removed.
  3. [Appendix A.4, Section 4.2] The human study and the LLM agent-to-agent experiments use different underlying samples. Human display sets are constructed so that exactly 2 of 5 flagged students are truly at-risk (40% conditional prevalence), whereas LLM episodes sample 30 students with 5 forced at-risk (16.7% base rate), and the agent's flag set has a prevalence determined by the noisy predictor. Since RAIR and RSR are defined only over agent-flagged students, the two populations are not directly comparable. The Figure 2 contrast should be re-run with the LLM condition using the same 5-student, 2-positive display as the human study, or the analysis should explicitly account for the differing conditional prevalence.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 2 caption vs. Section 5] The Figure 2 caption says 'Ten LLM agents cluster at RAIR <0.2 and RSR >0.97', while the main text says '11 of the 13 evaluated LLMs cluster' in that region. Please reconcile the count.
  2. [Title / throughout] The title uses 'PredAct-Bench' while the text uses 'PREDACTBENCH' (and the abstract says 'PREDACTBENCH'). Pick one consistent formatting and use it throughout, including the GitHub link.
  3. [Section 5, 'Humans and LLM instructors reach comparable F1'] The phrasing 'comparable F1' is based on humans' mean F1 (55–56) versus LLMs, but the spread across LLMs is large (Table 16), and the human sample is small (n=13). The text should acknowledge that the human F1 values carry substantial uncertainty; the appendix already notes this, but the main text could be more cautious.
  4. [Appendix A.10, Case 1] The failure case for GPT-5.4 Mini on OULAD at 80% target accuracy says the model 'never invoked minimum_score_needed or simulate_uniform_remaining'. This is consistent with the default-to-no_flag concern in Major Comment 1, but the text interprets it solely as over-trust. Please discuss the prompt rule as a possible contributing factor.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity; central derivation is self-contained. One minor, non-load-bearing self-citation appears in the discussion.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are computed from observed decisions and externally controlled experimental variables, not baked into the definitions. RAIR and RSR (Eqs. 6-7) are defined directly from initial/final decisions, ground truth, and agent outputs; they are not fitted to any target conclusion, and they transparently extend the prior Schemmer et al. framework rather than renaming it. The k-NN predictor noise injection (Eq. 5) is an experimental control that sets tool accuracy to specified target values, and the predictor's calibration is independently checked with ECE and Brier scores. The main finding that dialogue degrades F1 for 10 of 13 LLM instructors and that LLMs cluster at low RAIR/high RSR is an empirical result from those metrics, not a tautology. The only self-citation is reference [16] in the Discussion, used as an interpretive aside ('This wholesale acceptance is consistent with sycophancy dynamics...'); it is not load-bearing for the benchmark's results. A genuine experimental confound exists: Appendix A.1's Final Decision Prompt instructs LLM instructors to default to no_flag when no evidence was gathered, which can mechanically lower RAIR and raise RSR, and human participants were not given an equivalent rule. However, this is a design confound that biases an empirical comparison, not a case where a prediction reduces to its inputs by construction; the metrics still measure actual model decisions. Section 7 and Appendix B appropriately acknowledge the study's limitations; none of these passages asserts or implies a circular derivation. The paper is therefore self-contained against its own equations, with no circular reasoning in the derivation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central experiment rests on hand-set target accuracies, a heuristic k-NN tolerance scheme, fixed course/cutoff cells, a stratified 30-student/5-positive sampling rule, and a synthetic trajectory layer, plus domain assumptions about D/F ground truth, simulation validity, and the fixed assistant. There is no mathematical derivation to audit, so the main risk is not circular reasoning but whether the dependent measure is loaded by the final-decision prompt and the unmatched human baseline.

free parameters (6)
  • Target tool accuracy levels a* = 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8
    Hand-chosen experimental grid; all main results are reported as functions of this condition (§3.3, Table 8).
  • k-NN tolerance constants = τij = clip(0.5·σ̄S,3,10)·(0.4 + 0.6·r_ij)
    Heuristic formula controlling which historical students are retrieved; directly shapes tool accuracy and confidence (Eq. 2).
  • Distance voting weight = w_ij = 1/(1 + d(i,j))
    Arbitrarily chosen weighting function for k-NN prediction (Eq. 3); affects predicted grades and confidences.
  • Stratified sample composition = 30 students per episode, 5 forced at-risk
    Sampling rule chosen to keep F1 well-defined; determines the decision surface and all F1/RAIR/RSR values (§A.5, §A.8).
  • Per-cell course/week pairs = PREDACT-CS courses A–E at week 8; OULAD varied courses/cutoffs
    Each target accuracy is tied to one course/cutoff cell (Table 8), so tool accuracy is partly confounded with course difficulty and cutoff week.
  • Synthetic PREDACT-CS trajectory generator = not specified in text
    Weekly per-assignment scores are generated to terminate at real final grades, but the exact generator is not described (§3.2, Limitation 1).
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Ground-truth at-risk is final letter grade D or F, and trajectories up to the cutoff carry enough signal to predict risk.
    Defines F1, RAIR, RSR, and the stratification rule; task definition in §3.
  • domain assumption Synthetic PREDACT-CS weekly scores ending at real final grades preserve the statistical structure needed for realistic tool noise.
    The second dataset's validity rests on this; generation procedure is not fully specified (§3.2, Limitation 1).
  • domain assumption Preserving confidence while flipping predicted labels mimics real predictor miscalibration.
    Noise injection (§3.3) deliberately creates confidence/accuracy inconsistency and the paper asserts this mirrors real tools; no external validation is provided.
  • domain assumption A fixed GPT-4o Mini assistant does not confound cross-model instructor comparison.
    Experimental design (§4) fixes the assistant to isolate instructor effects; if assistant behavior varies by instructor model, rankings could be conflated.
  • domain assumption Human behavior with n=13 from one institution is sufficient for the qualitative calibrated-quadrant conclusion.
    Human study (§4.2); authors call it suggestive rather than definitive (Limitation 2).
  • domain assumption The k-NN adaptive radius and distance-weighted voting form a meaningful baseline prediction tool.
    Predictor design in §3.3 is heuristic; ECE/Brier are reported to justify calibration but the tool's absolute realism is asserted.
  • domain assumption The agent-to-agent LLM instructor is a valid proxy for a human instructor's decision process.
    The main 1,300-episode sweep uses an LLM playing the instructor (§4.2); the paper's 'instructor F1' claims inherit this simulation assumption.
invented entities (1)
  • PREDACT-CS synthetic weekly score trajectories
    purpose: Provide weekly granularity for 60 CS courses while preserving real final grade outcomes; basis of the PREDACT-CS half of the benchmark.
    Raw weekly trajectories are not releasable, so the synthetic layer cannot be independently verified; benchmark realism depends on an unvalidated generator.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of PredAct-Bench: Benchmarking Tool-Augmented Dialogue under Controlled Tool Noise." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3UIXGXVT

@misc{pith2026260802372,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: PredAct-Bench: Benchmarking Tool-Augmented Dialogue under Controlled Tool Noise},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3UIXGXVT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.02372}
}
read the original abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in task-oriented dialogue systems that support multi-step decision-making in high-stakes domains such as education, healthcare, and finance. However, existing benchmarks typically assume perfectly accurate tool outputs, overlooking the reality that deployed systems must operate with noisy tools and human decision-makers whose trust in the agent is itself uncertain. Such conditions are common in practice, for example, a clinician using a diagnostic prediction tool or an advisor relying on a model that forecasts student outcomes from historical records. We introduce PREDACTBENCH, a benchmark for evaluating dialogue agents paired with statistically imperfect tools, using education as a measurable testbed where ground truth outcomes and clear intervention decisions are available. First, we build a benchmark for AI-assisted human decision-making, where the AI uses noisy predictors to help guide a user. Second, we introduce episode-level Relative AI-Reliance (RAIR) and Relative self-reliance (RSR) metrics, extending prior trust calibration framework to multi-turn dialogue. Third, we evaluate 13 state-of-the-art closed and open source LLMs on two educational datasets, OULAD (real assessment trajectories from the UK Open University) and PREDACT-CS (60 courses with real final grade outcomes and synthetically generated weekly score trajectories), alongside a human study with instructors and teaching assistants. We find that when tools are noisy, SOTA models are supposed to provide visibility to teachers so that they do not over-rely on wrong suggestions or hallucinations, but current models fail to do that. We offer PREDACTBENCH to help build better LLMs as AI decision support systems to help teachers.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.02372 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the PREDACTBENCH. The system-initiated dialogue (left) shows two LLM agents conversing over tool outputs to autonomously analyze student performance, predict risk, and plan interventions. The user-initiated dialogue (right) shows an instructor querying, filtering, and challenging the analysis, triggering additional tool calls. Red text indicates values produced by the tools listed alongside each dialogue… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. RAIR vs RSR for one human group and 13 LLM agents. The human (gold diamond) sits alone in the calibrated quadrant (RAIR 0.63, RSR 0.88). Ten LLM agents cluster at RAIR < 0.2 and RSR > 0.97, indicating over reliance. Only GPT-5.5 and the Gemini variants approach human RAIR. Human study. To test whether the agent to agent findings generalize to real decision mak￾ers, we run a parallel study with n = 13 in￾structors an… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. F1 score after AI-assisted dialogue across target tool accuracy levels (40%–80%), broken [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Reliability diagrams of the k-NN grade predictor on OULAD (left) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Example PREDACTBENCH episode. The instructor agent receives a task description, sees flagged students with predicted grades and confidence scores, records an initial decision, then queries the assistant agent for grade histories and counterfactuals before committing to…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Tool quality across the semester. Accuracy, ECE, and Brier score for the k-NN grade [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Override behavior on agent-flagged students for humans (n=13, GPT-4o Mini assistant) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Post-study Likert survey responses (mean [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_8.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Claude Haiku 4.5 System Card

    Anthropic. Claude Haiku 4.5 System Card. https://anthropic.com/ claude-haiku-4-5-system-card, October 2025. Accessed: 2026-05-04

    2025

  2. [2]

    Claude Opus 4.7 System Card

    Anthropic. Claude Opus 4.7 System Card. https://anthropic.com/ claude-opus-4-7-system-card, April 2026. Accessed: 2026-05-04

    2026

  3. [3]

    τ 2-bench: Evaluating conversational agents in a dual-control environment, 2025

    Victor Barres, Honghua Dong, Soham Ray, Xujie Si, and Karthik Narasimhan. τ 2-bench: Evaluating conversational agents in a dual-control environment, 2025. URL https://arxiv. org/abs/2506.07982

    arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    MultiWOZ - a large-scale multi-domain Wizard-of-Oz dataset for task-oriented dialogue modelling

    Paweł Budzianowski, Tsung-Hsien Wen, Bo-Hsiang Tseng, Iñigo Casanueva, Stefan Ultes, Osman Ramadan, and Milica Gaši´c. MultiWOZ - a large-scale multi-domain Wizard-of-Oz dataset for task-oriented dialogue modelling. In Ellen Riloff, David Chiang, Julia Hockenmaier, and Jun’ichi Tsujii, editors,Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Nat...

    doi:10.18653/v 2018

  5. [5]

    Timebench: A comprehensive evaluation of temporal reasoning abilities in large language models

    Zheng Chu, Jingchang Chen, Qianglong Chen, Weijiang Yu, Haotian Wang, Ming Liu, and Bing Qin. Timebench: A comprehensive evaluation of temporal reasoning abilities in large language models. InProceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1204–1228, 2024

    2024

  6. [6]

    Timer: Temporal instruction modeling and evaluation for longitudinal clinical records.npj Digital Medicine, 8(1):577, 2025

    Hejie Cui, Alyssa Unell, Bowen Chen, Jason Alan Fries, Emily Alsentzer, Sanmi Koyejo, and Nigam H Shah. Timer: Temporal instruction modeling and evaluation for longitudinal clinical records.npj Digital Medicine, 8(1):577, 2025

    2025

  7. [7]

    Deepseek-v4: Towards highly efficient million-token context intelligence, 2026

    DeepSeek-AI. Deepseek-v4: Towards highly efficient million-token context intelligence, 2026

    2026

  8. [8]

    Mind2web: Towards a generalist agent for the web

    Xiang Deng, Yu Gu, Boyuan Zheng, Shijie Chen, Samuel Stevens, Boshi Wang, Huan Sun, and Yu Su. Mind2web: Towards a generalist agent for the web. InThirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems Datasets and Benchmarks Track, 2023. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=kiYqbO3wqw

    2023

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    MultiWOZ 2.1: A consol- idated multi-domain dialogue dataset with state corrections and state tracking baselines

    Mihail Eric, Rahul Goel, Shachi Paul, Abhishek Sethi, Sanchit Agarwal, Shuyang Gao, Adarsh Kumar, Anuj Goyal, Peter Ku, and Dilek Hakkani-Tur. MultiWOZ 2.1: A consol- idated multi-domain dialogue dataset with state corrections and state tracking baselines. In Nicoletta Calzola...

    2020

  2. [10]

    Verification of forecasts expressed in terms of probability.Monthly weather review, 78(1):1–3, 1950

    W Brier Glenn et al. Verification of forecasts expressed in terms of probability.Monthly weather review, 78(1):1–3, 1950

    1950

  3. [11]

    Gemini 3 Flash Model Card

    Google DeepMind. Gemini 3 Flash Model Card. https://deepmind.google/models/ model-cards/gemini-3-flash/, December 2025. Accessed: 2026-05-04

    2025

  4. [12]

    Gemini 3.1 Pro Model Card

    Google DeepMind. Gemini 3.1 Pro Model Card. https://deepmind.google/models/ model-cards/gemini-3-1-pro/, February 2026. Accessed: 2026-05-04

    2026

  5. [13]

    Weinberger

    Chuan Guo, Geoff Pleiss, Yu Sun, and Kilian Q. Weinberger. On calibration of modern neural networks. InProceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning - Volume 70, ICML’17, page 1321–1330. JMLR.org, 2017

    2017

  6. [14]

    Multiwoz 2.3: A multi-domain task-oriented dialogue dataset enhanced with annotation corrections and co-reference annotation

    Ting Han, Ximing Liu, Ryuichi Takanabu, Yixin Lian, Chongxuan Huang, Dazhen Wan, Wei Peng, and Minlie Huang. Multiwoz 2.3: A multi-domain task-oriented dialogue dataset enhanced with annotation corrections and co-reference annotation. In Lu Wang, Yansong Feng, Yu Hong, and Rui...

    2021

  7. [15]

    Towards explainable temporal reasoning in large language models: A structure-aware generative framework

    Zihao Jiang, Ben Liu, Miao Peng, Wenjie Xu, Yao Xiao, Zhenyan Shan, and Min Peng. Towards explainable temporal reasoning in large language models: A structure-aware generative framework. In Wanxiang Che, Joyce Nabende, Ekaterina Shutova, and Mohammad Taher Pilehvar, editors,Fi...

    2025 doi

  8. [16]

    Too polite to disagree: Understanding sycophancy propagation in multi-agent systems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.02668, 2026

    Vira Kasprova, Amruta Parulekar, Abdulrahman AlRabah, Krishna Agaram, Ritwik Garg, Sagar Jha, Nimet Beyza Bozdag, and Dilek Hakkani-Tur. Too polite to disagree: Understanding sycophancy propagation in multi-agent systems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.02668, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Beyond perfect apis: A comprehensive evaluation of llm agents under real-world api complexity, 2026

    Doyoung Kim, Zhiwei Ren, Jie Hao, Zhongkai Sun, Lichao Wang, Xiyao Ma, Zack Ye, Xu Han, Jun Yin, Heng Ji, Wei Shen, Xing Fan, Benjamin Yao, and Chenlei Guo. Beyond perfect apis: A comprehensive evaluation of llm agents under real-world api complexity, 2026. URL https://arxiv.o...

    2026

  10. [18]

    Counterfactual-consistency prompting for relative tem- poral understanding in large language models

    Jongho Kim and Seung-won Hwang. Counterfactual-consistency prompting for relative tem- poral understanding in large language models. In Wanxiang Che, Joyce Nabende, Ekaterina Shutova, and Mohammad Taher Pilehvar, editors,Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Associatio...

    2025 doi

  11. [19]

    Open university learning analytics dataset

    Jakub Kuzilek, Martin Hlosta, and Zdenek Zdrahal. Open university learning analytics dataset. Scientific Data, 4(1):170171, 2017. doi: 10.1038/sdata.2017.171. URL https://doi.org/ 10.1038/sdata.2017.171

    2017 doi

  12. [20]

    Prefix: Understand and adapt to user preference in human-agent interaction, 2026

    Jialin Li, Zhenhao Chen, Hanjun Luo, and Hanan Salam. Prefix: Understand and adapt to user preference in human-agent interaction, 2026. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2602.06714

    2026

  13. [21]

    Alexander H. Liu, Kartik Khandelwal, Sandeep Subramanian, Victor Jouault, Abhinav Rastogi, Adrien Sadé, Alan Jeffares, Albert Jiang, Alexandre Cahill, Alexandre Gavaudan, Alexandre Sablayrolles, Amélie Héliou, Amos You, Andy Ehrenberg, Andy Lo, Anton Eliseev, Anto- nia Calvi, ...

    2026 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Molina, and Ahmed Alaa

    Nikita Mehandru, Niloufar Golchini, David Bamman, Travis Zack, Melanie F. Molina, and Ahmed Alaa. Er-reason: A benchmark dataset for llm-based clinical reasoning in the emergency room, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2505.22919

    2025 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Mistral-Small-24B-Instruct-2501

    Mistral AI. Mistral-Small-24B-Instruct-2501. https://huggingface.co/mistralai/ Mistral-Small-24B-Instruct-2501, January 2025. Accessed: 2026-05-04. 11

    2025

  16. [24]

    Time is encoded in the weights of finetuned language models

    Kai Nylund, Suchin Gururangan, and Noah Smith. Time is encoded in the weights of finetuned language models. In Lun-Wei Ku, Andre Martins, and Vivek Srikumar, editors,Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)...

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    GPT-4o mini: Advancing cost-efficient intelligence

    OpenAI. GPT-4o mini: Advancing cost-efficient intelligence. https://openai.com/ index/gpt-4o-mini-advancing-cost-efficient-intelligence/ , July 2024. Ac- cessed: 2026-05-04

    2024

  18. [26]

    Introducing GPT-5.4 mini and nano

    OpenAI. Introducing GPT-5.4 mini and nano. https://openai.com/index/ introducing-gpt-5-4-mini-and-nano/, March 2026. Accessed: 2026-05-04

    2026

  19. [27]

    GPT-5.5 System Card

    OpenAI. GPT-5.5 System Card. https://openai.com/index/gpt-5-5-system-card/ , April 2026. Accessed: 2026-05-04

    2026

  20. [28]

    Patil, Tianjun Zhang, Xin Wang, and Joseph E

    Shishir G. Patil, Tianjun Zhang, Xin Wang, and Joseph E. Gonzalez. Gorilla: Large lan- guage model connected with massive apis. In A. Globerson, L. Mackey, D. Belgrave, A. Fan, U. Paquet, J. Tomczak, and C. Zhang, editors,Advances in Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems, vo...

    2024 doi

  21. [29]

    Gonzalez

    Shishir G Patil, Huanzhi Mao, Fanjia Yan, Charlie Cheng-Jie Ji, Vishnu Suresh, Ion Stoica, and Joseph E. Gonzalez. The berkeley function calling leaderboard (BFCL): From tool use to agentic evaluation of large language models. InForty-second International Conference on Machine...

    2025

  22. [30]

    Llmd: A large language model for interpreting longitudinal medical records.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.12860, 2024

    Robert Porter, Adam Diehl, Benjamin Pastel, J Henry Hinnefeld, Lawson Nerenberg, Pye Maung, Sebastien Kerbrat, Gillian Hanson, Troy Astorino, and Stephen J Tarsa. Llmd: A large language model for interpreting longitudinal medical records.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.12860, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    ToolLLM: Facilitating large language models to master 16000+ real-world APIs

    Yujia Qin, Shihao Liang, Yining Ye, Kunlun Zhu, Lan Yan, Yaxi Lu, Yankai Lin, Xin Cong, Xiangru Tang, Bill Qian, Sihan Zhao, Lauren Hong, Runchu Tian, Ruobing Xie, Jie Zhou, Mark Gerstein, dahai li, Zhiyuan Liu, and Maosong Sun. ToolLLM: Facilitating large language models to m...

    2024

  24. [32]

    Qwen3.5: Towards native multimodal agents, February 2026

    Qwen Team. Qwen3.5: Towards native multimodal agents, February 2026. URL https: //qwen.ai/blog?id=qwen3.5

    2026

  25. [33]

    Towards scalable multi-domain conversational agents: The schema-guided dialogue dataset.Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 34(05):8689–8696, Apr

    Abhinav Rastogi, Xiaoxue Zang, Srinivas Sunkara, Raghav Gupta, and Pranav Khaitan. Towards scalable multi-domain conversational agents: The schema-guided dialogue dataset.Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 34(05):8689–8696, Apr. 2020. doi: 10.1609/ ...

    2020

  26. [34]

    Appropriate reliance on ai advice: Conceptualization and the effect of explanations

    Max Schemmer, Niklas Kuehl, Carina Benz, Andrea Bartos, and Gerhard Satzger. Appropriate reliance on ai advice: Conceptualization and the effect of explanations. InProceedings of the 28th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, pages 410–422, 2023

    2023

  27. [35]

    Timo: Towards better temporal reasoning for language models

    Zhaochen Su, Jun Zhang, Tong Zhu, Xiaoye Qu, Juntao Li, Min zhang, and Yu Cheng. Timo: Towards better temporal reasoning for language models. InFirst Conference on Language Modeling, 2024. URLhttps://openreview.net/forum?id=3TzGD95Jw1

    2024

  28. [36]

    Paladin: Self-correcting language model agents to cure tool-failure cases, 2025

    Sri Vatsa Vuddanti, Aarav Shah, Satwik Kumar Chittiprolu, Tony Song, Sunishchal Dev, Kevin Zhu, and Maheep Chaudhary. Paladin: Self-correcting language model agents to cure tool-failure cases, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2509.25238

    2025

  29. [37]

    Agentnoisebench: Benchmarking robustness of tool-using llm agents under noisy condition, 2026

    Ruipeng Wang, Yuxin Chen, Yukai Wang, Chang Wu, Junfeng Fang, Xiaodong Cai, Qi Gu, Hui Su, An Zhang, Xiang Wang, Xunliang Cai, and Tat-Seng Chua. Agentnoisebench: Benchmarking robustness of tool-using llm agents under noisy condition, 2026. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.11348. 12

    2026

  30. [38]

    Butterfly effects in toolchains: A comprehensive analysis of failed parameter filling in LLM tool-agent systems

    Qian Xiong, Yuekai Huang, Ziyou Jiang, Zhiyuan Chang, Yujia Zheng, Tianhao Li, and Mingyang Li. Butterfly effects in toolchains: A comprehensive analysis of failed parameter filling in LLM tool-agent systems. In Christos Christodoulopoulos, Tanmoy Chakraborty, Car- olyn Rose, ...

    2025

  31. [39]

    Reducing tool hallucination via reliability alignment, 2025

    Hongshen Xu, Zichen Zhu, Lei Pan, Zihan Wang, Su Zhu, Da Ma, Ruisheng Cao, Lu Chen, and Kai Yu. Reducing tool hallucination via reliability alignment, 2025. URL https://arxiv. org/abs/2412.04141

    2025 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Can tool-augmented large language models be aware of incomplete conditions?, 2025

    Seungbin Yang, ChaeHun Park, Taehee Kim, and Jaegul Choo. Can tool-augmented large language models be aware of incomplete conditions?, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2406.12307

    2025 arXiv

  33. [41]

    τ-bench: A benchmark for Tool-Agent-User interaction in real-world domains

    Shunyu Yao, Noah Shinn, Pedram Razavi, and Karthik R Narasimhan. τ-bench: A benchmark for Tool-Agent-User interaction in real-world domains. InThe Thirteenth International Con- ference on Learning Representations, 2025. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id= roNSXZpUDN

    2025

  34. [42]

    MultiWOZ 2.4: A multi-domain task-oriented dialogue dataset with essential annotation corrections to improve state track- ing evaluation

    Fanghua Ye, Jarana Manotumruksa, and Emine Yilmaz. MultiWOZ 2.4: A multi-domain task-oriented dialogue dataset with essential annotation corrections to improve state track- ing evaluation. In Oliver Lemon, Dilek Hakkani-Tur, Junyi Jessy Li, Arash Ashrafzadeh, Daniel Hernández ...

    2022

  35. [43]

    MultiWOZ 2.2 : A dialogue dataset with additional annotation corrections and state tracking baselines

    Xiaoxue Zang, Abhinav Rastogi, Srinivas Sunkara, Raghav Gupta, Jianguo Zhang, and Jindong Chen. MultiWOZ 2.2 : A dialogue dataset with additional annotation corrections and state tracking baselines. In Tsung-Hsien Wen, Asli Celikyilmaz, Zhou Yu, Alexandros Papangelis, Mihail E...

    2020

  36. [44]

    From allies to adversaries: Manipulating LLM tool-calling through adversarial injection

    Rupeng Zhang, Haowei Wang, Junjie Wang, Mingyang Li, Yuekai Huang, Dandan Wang, and Qing Wang. From allies to adversaries: Manipulating LLM tool-calling through adversarial injection. In Luis Chiruzzo, Alan Ritter, and Lu Wang, editors,Proceedings of the 2025 Conference of the...

    2025

  37. [45]

    CLAMBER: A benchmark of identifying and clarifying ambiguous information needs in large language models

    Tong Zhang, Peixin Qin, Yang Deng, Chen Huang, Wenqiang Lei, Junhong Liu, Dingnan Jin, Hongru Liang, and Tat-Seng Chua. CLAMBER: A benchmark of identifying and clarifying ambiguous information needs in large language models. In Lun-Wei Ku, Andre Martins, and Vivek Srikumar, ed...

    2024

  38. [46]

    ToolBeHonest: A multi-level hallucination diagnostic benchmark for tool-augmented large language models

    Yuxiang Zhang, Jing Chen, Junjie Wang, Yaxin Liu, Cheng Yang, Chufan Shi, Xinyu Zhu, Zihao Lin, Hanwen Wan, Yujiu Yang, Tetsuya Sakai, Tian Feng, and Hayato Yamana. ToolBeHonest: A multi-level hallucination diagnostic benchmark for tool-augmented large language models. In Yase...

    2024

  39. [47]

    primary driver

    Shuyan Zhou, Frank F Xu, Hao Zhu, Xuhui Zhou, Robert Lo, Abishek Sridhar, Xianyi Cheng, Yonatan Bisk, Daniel Fried, Uri Alon, et al. Webarena: A realistic web environment for building autonomous agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.13854, 2023. 14 A Reproducibility This appendix d...

    2023 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Run the k-NN predictor on every sampled student to obtain ( predicted_grade, confidence)

  41. [49]

    Compare each prediction against ground truth and labelcorrectorwrong

  42. [50]

    Compute the desired number of correct predictions: target_correct=round(target_acc·N)

  43. [51]

    If currently_correct>target_correct : shuffle the correct predictions and flip the first (currently_correct−target_correct)to a uniformly-chosen wrong grade

  44. [52]

    If currently_correct<target_correct : shuffle the wrong predictions and flip the first (target_correct−currently_correct)to the truth label

  45. [53]

    Failure Risk: Critical

    Onlypredicted_gradeis rewritten;confidenceis preserved. This guarantees realized accuracy on the sample equals the target exactly. Tool-side functions (grade lookup, counterfactuals, minimum-score, class statistics) are unaffected and always return ground-truth-derived values....

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.