Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

CIBench: Evaluating Your LLMs with a Code Interpreter Plugin

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 2407.10499 v3 pith:F52V53DK submitted 2024-07-15 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords evaluationllmsabilitycibenchcodeassessdatasetframework
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

While LLM-Based agents, which use external tools to solve complex problems, have made significant progress, benchmarking their ability is challenging, thereby hindering a clear understanding of their limitations. In this paper, we propose an interactive evaluation framework, named CIBench, to comprehensively assess LLMs' ability to utilize code interpreters for data science tasks. Our evaluation framework includes an evaluation dataset and two evaluation modes. The evaluation dataset is constructed using an LLM-human cooperative approach and simulates an authentic workflow by leveraging consecutive and interactive IPython sessions. The two evaluation modes assess LLMs' ability with and without human assistance. We conduct extensive experiments to analyze the ability of 24 LLMs on CIBench and provide valuable insights for future LLMs in code interpreter utilization.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID 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. Running in CIRCLE? A Simple Benchmark for LLM Code Interpreter Security

    cs.CR 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    CIRCLE is a 1,260-prompt benchmark that measures how often commercial LLM code interpreters refuse, execute, or time out on resource-exhaustion tasks, revealing large and inconsistent safety gaps.

  2. Exploring Autonomous Agents: A Closer Look at Why They Fail When Completing Tasks

    cs.AI 2025-08 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Across 204 runs of three agent frameworks on 34 tasks, only about half are successful, and failures fall into planning, execution, and response-generation categories.

Pith tools