ToolBeHonest: A Multi-level Hallucination Diagnostic Benchmark for Tool-Augmented Large Language Models
Reviewed by Pithpith:FKDMI3QLopen to challenge →
read the original abstract
Tool-augmented large language models (LLMs) are rapidly being integrated into real-world applications. Due to the lack of benchmarks, the community has yet to fully understand the hallucination issues within these models. To address this challenge, we introduce a comprehensive diagnostic benchmark, ToolBH. Specifically, we assess the LLM's hallucinations through two perspectives: depth and breadth. In terms of depth, we propose a multi-level diagnostic process, including (1) solvability detection, (2) solution planning, and (3) missing-tool analysis. For breadth, we consider three scenarios based on the characteristics of the toolset: missing necessary tools, potential tools, and limited functionality tools. Furthermore, we developed seven tasks and collected 700 evaluation samples through multiple rounds of manual annotation. The results show the significant challenges presented by the ToolBH benchmark. The current advanced models Gemini-1.5-Pro and GPT-4o only achieve total scores of 45.3 and 37.0, respectively, on a scale of 100. In this benchmark, larger model parameters do not guarantee better performance; the training data and response strategies also play crucial roles in tool-enhanced LLM scenarios. Our diagnostic analysis indicates that the primary reason for model errors lies in assessing task solvability. Additionally, open-weight models suffer from performance drops with verbose replies, whereas proprietary models excel with longer reasoning.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet.
Forward citations
Cited by 5 Pith papers
-
Model-Adaptive Tool Necessity Reveals the Knowing-Doing Gap in LLM Tool Use
Model-adaptive tool necessity shows 26-54% mismatch with actual tool calls across LLMs, driven by nearly orthogonal hidden-state signals for cognition versus action.
-
Model-Adaptive Tool Necessity Reveals the Knowing-Doing Gap in LLM Tool Use
LLMs show a knowing-doing gap in tool use: they often recognize when tools are needed via internal states but fail to translate that into actual tool calls, with mismatches of 26-54% on arithmetic and factual tasks.
-
Beyond the Final Answer: Evaluating the Reasoning Trajectories of Tool-Augmented Agents
TRACE is a reference-free multi-dimensional evaluation framework for tool-augmented LLM reasoning trajectories that uses an evidence bank and is validated on a new meta-evaluation dataset of flawed trajectories.
-
Learning to Act under Noise: Enhancing Agent Robustness via Noisy Environments
NoisyAgent trains LLM agents with controlled user and tool noise to improve robustness in stochastic environments while also boosting clean-benchmark performance.
-
Your LLM Agents are Temporally Blind: The Misalignment Between Tool Use Decisions and Human Time Perception
LLM agents exhibit temporal blindness, achieving no better than 65% normalized alignment with human preferences on tool-use decisions across time-sensitive scenarios in the new TicToc dataset.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.