REVIEW 3 cited by
WTU-EVAL: A Whether-or-Not Tool Usage Evaluation Benchmark for Large Language Models
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
WTU-EVAL: A Whether-or-Not Tool Usage Evaluation Benchmark for Large Language Models
read the original abstract
Although Large Language Models (LLMs) excel in NLP tasks, they still need external tools to extend their ability. Current research on tool learning with LLMs often assumes mandatory tool use, which does not always align with real-world situations, where the necessity for tools is uncertain, and incorrect or unnecessary use of tools can damage the general abilities of LLMs. Therefore, we propose to explore whether LLMs can discern their ability boundaries and use tools flexibly. We then introduce the Whether-or-not tool usage Evaluation benchmark (WTU-Eval) to assess LLMs with eleven datasets, where six of them are tool-usage datasets, and five are general datasets. LLMs are prompted to use tools according to their needs. The results of eight LLMs on WTU-Eval reveal that LLMs frequently struggle to determine tool use in general datasets, and LLMs' performance in tool-usage datasets improves when their ability is similar to ChatGPT. In both datasets, incorrect tool usage significantly impairs LLMs' performance. To mitigate this, we also develop the finetuning dataset to enhance tool decision-making. Fine-tuning Llama2-7B results in a 14\% average performance improvement and a 16.8\% decrease in incorrect tool usage. We will release the WTU-Eval benchmark.
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
The Tool-Overuse Illusion: Why Does LLM Prefer External Tools over Internal Knowledge?
LLMs overuse tools because they misjudge their own knowledge boundaries and because outcome-only rewards ignore efficiency; targeted alignment and balanced rewards reduce overuse by up to 82% without accuracy loss.
-
TIDE-Bench: Task-Aware and Diagnostic Evaluation of Tool-Integrated Reasoning
TIDE-Bench is a new benchmark for tool-integrated reasoning that combines diverse tasks, multi-aspect metrics covering answer quality, process reliability, efficiency and cost, plus filtered challenging test sets.
-
AGAPI-Agents: An Open-Access Agentic AI Platform for Accelerated Materials Design on AtomGPT.org
An open-source agentic materials-design platform shows tool access can help or hurt accuracy depending on the property, but its headline memorization-resistant test results are not presented.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.