Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 56 references

Training tool-using agents on execution-validated traces—tasks synthesized only after the tools actually run—improves their tool-call behavior and answers; masking reasoning tokens during training outperforms supervising them.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 12:14 UTC pith:L4HBADMO

load-bearing objection Useful execution-first pipeline, but the masked-vs-full supervision claim is a single unexplained datapoint in a self-referential evaluation. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.29175 v1 pith:L4HBADMO submitted 2026-07-31 cs.SE

Execution-First Synthetic Tool-Use Trace Generation for LLM Agents

Hafsa Ouajdi , Francesco Giannuzzo , Alaa Boukhary , Paolo Papotti , Gerard Conangla , Adam Elwood This is my paper
classification cs.SE
keywords tool-augmented agentssynthetic data generationexecution-first pipelinesupervised fine-tuningreasoning supervisionreference-trace agreementDAG workflowsoperational taxonomy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper claims that the usual way of building training data for tool-using AI agents is backwards. Instead of writing a plausible user request and hoping an agent can find a valid tool sequence, the proposed pipeline first designs abstract workflows, instantiates them as concrete tool calls, executes them in a sandbox, and keeps only traces that actually run; only then does it generate natural-language user tasks, reasoning notes, and reference answers from the validated execution. Fine-tuning models at 4B and 9B scale on this data, the authors report, improves tool execution reliability, agreement with the reference trace, and final-answer quality across four tool ecosystems. The sharper finding is a supervision trade-off: when the training loss excludes the 'think' tokens, answer-quality metrics improve, while supervising the complete assistant output, including reasoning, underperforms and even hurts answer completion at 9B scale. A sympathetic reader would take the paper to be establishing that execution grounding, not language-first generation, is the right ordering for tool-agent supervision, and that the choice of which tokens to supervise is as important as the data itself.

Core claim

The central discovery is that supervision quality for tool-augmented agents is determined by whether the trace was verified by execution before any task text exists. The pipeline inverts query-first synthesis: profile tools into operational classes, have an LLM generate abstract DAG templates, instantiate them with compatible tools via depth-first search under data-flow constraints, execute every candidate in a controlled environment, and keep only the roughly 80% of traces that run successfully. Only then does an annotator write user tasks, reasoning annotations, and reference answers grounded in the recorded tool outputs. Fine-tuning models at 4B and 9B scale on this corpus improves tool-s

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the execution-first pipeline itself, organized around an operational taxonomy and active-domain profiling. Abstract execution templates are directed acyclic graphs over operational classes; a depth-first search instantiates them into concrete tool sequences by checking that each downstream tool's data-flow inputs are present among upstream outputs, using semantic roles and types rather than parameter names. Candidate traces are executed in a sandbox and discarded unless all calls succeed. Only validated executions feed the final stage, which writes the user question, teacher reasoning trace, and reference answer. The second mechanism is the loss-masking comparis

Load-bearing premise

The pipeline's ground truth is self-referential: the same LLM that writes each abstract template also validates its execution, writes the reference answer and reasoning, and effectively defines the test distribution, so any systematic error or unrepresentativeness in those traces is baked into both training and evaluation.

What would settle it

Evaluate models fine-tuned on this pipeline on a held-out set of real user requests from a production tool environment or a human-constructed benchmark, and compare tool-success rate and answer accuracy; if the gains shrink or vanish outside the pipeline's own generated distribution, the execution-first ordering is not the cause of the improvement. Alternatively, run the pipeline with independent validators and human review on a random sample of traces; if a large fraction of 'validated' traces contain wrong tool choices or unsupported answers, the validation stage is not establishing correctn

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Synthetic data for tool agents can be generated at scale with a fraction of the invalid examples: roughly 80% of traces execute versus a reported 15% for a query-first baseline, lowering per-trace cost and latency.
  • Tool-use reliability transfers to held-out tasks: fine-tuned models show near-zero hallucinated-tool and syntax-error rates and much smaller attempt-success gaps than base models.
  • Reference-trace agreement improves: tool-set F1 rises from about 0.53 to 0.57 and sequence similarity from about 0.27-0.29 to 0.34-0.38 after fine-tuning.
  • Supervision design matters as much as data volume: excluding reasoning tokens from the loss improves answer completion (for example, 59.5% vs 35.0% at 4B; 86.0% vs 17.5% at 9B), so process supervision should be tuned per capability.
  • The framework transfers across tool ecosystems through interface wrappers alone, suggesting it can be applied to new environments without changing the generation logic.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the same LLM that generates each template also validates it, synthesizes the task, and defines the reference answer, the reported gains may partly reflect self-consistency on the model's own distribution; an independent human-authored benchmark would test whether the supervision transfers to genuinely novel user requests.
  • The masked-supervision result invites a testable mechanism: if reasoning tokens are post-hoc rationales rather than the model's own planning, supervising them may teach the model to imitate a foreign reasoning style, degrading answer quality; masking avoids that. This predicts that masking benefits grow as teacher-student mismatch grows.
  • A natural extension is to vary the teacher LLM independently across template generation, validation, and annotation; if validation quality is the binding constraint, using a stronger validator or adding human checks on a sample of traces should further improve downstream performance.
  • The trade-off suggests a practical recipe: generate execution-first data, then train with masked loss when answer quality is the goal, and consider full supervision only when reasoning-trace fidelity itself is the target.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes SyntheticAgentTraceQA, an execution-first pipeline for generating tool-use supervision data. Instead of starting from user queries, the pipeline profiles tools into operational classes, generates abstract DAG templates, instantiates them with concrete tools via dependency-aware search, executes and validates the resulting traces, and only then synthesizes user tasks, reasoning annotations, and reference answers from the validated executions. The authors evaluate the framework on three enterprise tool ecosystems plus the genius_song_lyrics tool group from ToolBench, generating 7,761 task samples from 2,587 validated traces. They fine-tune Qwen3.5-4B and Qwen3.5-9B with LoRA on a 1,000-example split under two objectives: Masked (loss excludes <think> tokens) and Full (loss includes them). They report that execution-grounded supervision improves tool behavior, Reference-Trace Agreement, and answer quality relative to base models, and that Masked supervision outperforms Full supervision on answer metrics, especially at 9B where Full supervision collapses.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper makes a useful methodological contribution: an execution-first, reverse-generation recipe for synthetic tool-agent data that demonstrably reduces invalid traces and improves in-distribution tool-agent behavior after fine-tuning. The multi-domain operational taxonomy and the explicit trace-level split are sensible design choices, and the comparison with Toucan, though acknowledged as within-pipeline, is a useful sanity check. The central supervision trade-off — Masked beats Full, particularly at 9B — is an interesting and practically relevant claim that would, if confirmed, inform how synthetic reasoning annotations should be used. However, the significance is tempered by the fact that the test set is generated by the same pipeline and, per trace, by the same LLM family that produced the training data; the reported metrics therefore partly measure agreement with the generator's own conventions. The small test set (n=200) and single-run fine-tuning also limit the precision of the quantitative claims. Given these caveats, the contribution is real but requires stronger validation before it can support general claims about tool-agent training data.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.6, §6.2] The held-out test set is drawn from the same generation process as the training data: the same LLM that generates a template also validates its execution and writes the reference answer and reasoning trace. Consequently, the reported improvements in Reference-Trace Agreement and answer quality partly measure how well the fine-tuned model has learned the generator's own conventions, not how well it generalizes to independently verified tool tasks. This is load-bearing for RQ1/H1. I would like to see at least one of: a human-validated sample of the test set, evaluation on externally authored tasks (e.g., original ToolBench tasks with independent references), or a restatement of the claim as 'in-distribution synthetic-trace learning' rather than general tool-agent capability.
  2. [§7.1 Table 2, §8] The 9B-Full collapse (Answer Completion 17.5% vs. 52.8% for Base-9B-Thinking) is the main empirical pillar for the masked-vs-full trade-off and the paper's recommendation to mask reasoning tokens. The discussion offers only a post-hoc hypothesis (post-hoc rationales, teacher-student compatibility) and does not rule out mechanical confounds: teacher-model style mismatch for long <think> blocks, loss-scale imbalance from lengthy reasoning sequences dominating the full loss, LoRA training instability at 9B, or overfitting on 1,000 examples for three epochs. Please provide training-loss curves, checkpoint evaluations, and at least one control (e.g., Full supervision with reasoning traces truncated or reweighted, or matched-length reasoning traces) before making the masking recommendation.
  3. [§6.2–6.3, Tables 2–4] Results are reported as mean ± SE across 200 test tasks from a single fine-tuning run per condition. This ignores run-to-run variability from LoRA training and data subsampling. Claims such as 'slightly higher Token F1 (0.15 vs. 0.14)', 'Numeric Match (9.83% vs. 8.25%)', or Prefix (0.43 vs. 0.42) are not supported by any significance test or multi-seed confidence interval. Please report multiple training seeds and, if appropriate, statistical tests, or explicitly characterize these differences as qualitative.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§6.4] The evaluation executes tool calls only outside <think> blocks, which is consistent with the Masked training objective but may bias the comparison against Full supervision in a subtle way: Full supervision trains the model to put reasoning inside <think>, while the evaluation ignores those tokens for execution. Please discuss this potential asymmetry.
  2. [§7.4, Tables 5–6] The Toucan comparison is useful but uses an LLM-as-a-judge without reporting judge prompt details, inter-judge agreement, or human validation. The fine-tuning comparison likewise evaluates each model on its own benchmark; the paper acknowledges this, but the caveat should also appear in the abstract or contributions to avoid overreading.
  3. [§4.1] The operational taxonomy (six classes) is introduced as a design axiom. A brief justification of why these six classes suffice for the four domains, and where they might break, would strengthen the portability claim.
  4. [General] The paper does not mention code/data release. For reproducibility of the pipeline and the fine-tuning experiments, providing the generated dataset, generation prompts, and training scripts would be valuable.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the central claims rest on held-out fine-tuning experiments and objective execution checks, not on a fitted parameter or self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is experimental rather than formal. Execution-first generation is validated by executing candidate traces in controlled environments (§4.5) and retaining only traces that pass runtime validation; the LLM-based validator in §4.6 is an additional consistency check, not the sole definition of correctness. Fine-tuning uses a fixed 1,000-example training split, and all results are reported on a held-out test set stratified at the execution-trace level (§6.2), so there is no fitted-parameter-called-prediction or label leakage. The masked-vs-full supervision comparison is a reported experimental observation with acknowledged possible explanations (§8) rather than a result forced by construction. The same-LLM generation of templates, validation, and reference answers is a real limitation for external validity—the references are teacher-generated and the paper itself says these 'reflect automated evaluation measures rather than human-validated quality'—but it does not make any specific prediction equivalent to its inputs. There are no load-bearing self-citations, no imported uniqueness theorems, and no ansatz smuggled in via citation. The Toucan comparison is explicitly caveated as within-pipeline rather than a controlled cross-pipeline comparison, so it is not presented as a stronger result than it is. No circular step meets the quoted-reduction bar.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

Two hand-chosen design parameters shape the generated data distribution (complexity thresholds, tasks-per-trace), and several experimental hyperparameters are fixed across runs. The key load-bearing axiom is that a single LLM can validate its own traces and write reliable reference answers; no human or external check exists. The taxonomy and active-domain sampling are also assumed sufficient for realistic workflows.

free parameters (6)
  • Complexity thresholds for Easy/Medium/Hard templates = Easy: |V| in {1,2}; Medium: {3,4}; Hard: {5,6}
    Hand-chosen DAG-size cutoffs control the generated difficulty mix; §6.2 reports 287/282/107 templates across levels.
  • Tasks per validated trace = 3 (Basic/Intermediate/Challenging)
    Each validated trace yields exactly three user tasks, affecting dataset size and difficulty balance.
  • Training subset size = 1,000 examples
    Chosen for computational constraints; may not reflect the full 7,761-sample corpus; acknowledged in §6.3.
  • Test set size = n=200
    Held-out test set size; all standard errors are computed over 200 tasks.
  • LoRA and optimization hyperparameters = r=16, alpha=32, lr=2e-4, 3 epochs, 4-bit NF4
    Fixed across runs so supervision differences are attributable to the objective, but still hand-chosen.
  • Numeric Match tolerance = absolute tolerance 0.01, positional matching
    Metric definition chosen by hand; directly affects Numeric Match scores.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Reference traces generated by the pipeline are correct enough to serve as ground truth
    §4.6 validation is performed by the same LLM that generated the trace; no human or independent verification.
  • ad hoc to paper Six operational classes (Matcher, Retriever, Analyzer, Aggregator, Metadata, Access) are sufficient to abstract real tool workflows
    §4.1 proposes the taxonomy without coverage analysis beyond the four evaluated domains.
  • domain assumption Active-domain samples are representative of real user inputs
    §4.2 samples feasible values from underlying data or tool specs; unrepresentative samples would make synthesized tasks unrealistic.
  • domain assumption LLM-as-a-judge quality scores are trustworthy
    §7.4 uses Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite; the paper acknowledges the scores are automated, not human-validated.
  • domain assumption Fine-tuning on 1,000 examples estimates the value of the full corpus
    §6.3 trains on a fixed 1,000-example subset due to compute constraints; scaling behavior is left to future work.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-daily-deepseek · 17687 in / 14016 out tokens · 121608 ms · 2026-08-03T12:14:36.380978+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Agentic software-engineering and industrial systems increasingly operate through executable workflows rather than code genera- tion alone: they search artifacts, invoke tools, inspect structured observations, and query databases. Training these agents requires supervision data that captures valid tool interactions and executable workflows. However, traditional query-first data synthesis can fail because plausible user requests may not correspond to valid tool sequences, compatible parameters, or available data. To address this limitation, we propose SyntheticAgentTraceQA, an execution- first framework for generating scalable supervision data for tool- augmented agents. Our framework first constructs high-level work- flow structures, maps them to available tools through dependency- aware assignment, executes and validates the resulting traces in con- trolled environments, and only then synthesizes natural-language user tasks, teacher-generated reasoning annotations, and reference answers. We evaluate the framework across four tool ecosystems and use the resulting data to fine-tune and evaluate Qwen model variants. The results show that execution-grounded supervision improves tool execution behavior, reference-trace agreement, and answer-generation performance on the evaluated tasks. Further analysis reveals a supervision trade-off: masked supervision, which excludes reasoning annotations from the training objective, im- proves final-answer metrics, whereas full supervision, computing loss over the complete assistant output including reasoning tokens, underperforms on answer quality and does not consistently im- prove reference-trace agreement, particularly at the 9B scale. These findings highlight the importance of designing synthetic supervi- sion according to the desired capabilities of tool-augmented agents.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.29175 by Adam Elwood, Alaa Boukhary, Francesco Giannuzzo, Gerard Conangla, Hafsa Ouajdi, Paolo Papotti.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overview of SyntheticAgentTraceQA. The execution-first pipeline constructs and validates tool-use traces before [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Lameck Mbangula Amugongo, Pietro Mascheroni, Steve Brooks, Stefan Doering, and Jan Seidel. 2025. Retrieval Augmented Generation for Large Language Models in Healthcare: A Systematic Review.PLOS Digital Health4 (2025). doi:10.1371/ journal.pdig.0000877

    2025

  2. [2]

    Markosyan, Volker Seeker, Chris Cummins, M

    Jordi Armengol-Estapé, Quentin Carbonneaux, Tianjun Zhang, Aram H. Markosyan, Volker Seeker, Chris Cummins, M. Kambadur, Michael F. P. O’Boyle, Sida Wang, Gabriel Synnaeve, and Hugh Leather. 2025. What I Cannot Execute, I Do Not Understand: Training and Evaluating LLMs on Program Execution Traces. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.05703(2025). doi:10.48550/arXiv....

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.05703 2025

  3. [3]

    Bran, Sam Cox, Oliver Schilter, Carlo Baldassari, Andrew D

    Andres M. Bran, Sam Cox, Oliver Schilter, Carlo Baldassari, Andrew D. White, and Philippe Schwaller. 2024. Augmenting Large Language Models with Chemistry Tools.Nature Machine Intelligence6 (2024), 525–535. doi:10.1038/s42256-024- 00832-8

    doi:10.1038/s42256-024- 2024

  4. [4]

    Zhiwei Dong, Ruihao Gong, Yang Yong, Shu Wu, Yongqiang Yao, Song-Lu Chen, and Xu-Cheng Yin. 2025. Tool Playgrounds: A Comprehensive and Analyzable Benchmark for LLM Tool Invocation. InICASSP 2025 – IEEE International Confer- ence on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing. 1–5. doi:10.1109/ICASSP49660. 2025.10890828

    arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Leon Engländer, Sophia Althammer, Ahmet Üstün, Matthias Gallé, and Tom Sherborne. 2026. Agents Explore but Agents Ignore: LLMs Lack Environmental Curiosity.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.17609(2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  6. [6]

    Goodell, Simon N

    Alex J. Goodell, Simon N. Chu, D. Rouholiman, and Larry F. Chu. 2025. Large Language Model Agents Can Use Tools to Perform Clinical Calculations.npj Digital Medicine8 (2025). doi:10.1038/s41746-025-01475-8

    doi:10.1038/s41746-025-01475-8 2025

  7. [7]

    Zhibin Gou, Zhihong Shao, Yeyun Gong, Yujiu Yang, Nan Duan, Weizhu Chen, et al . 2024. CRITIC: Large Language Models Can Self-Correct with Tool- Interactive Critiquing. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations

    2024

  8. [8]

    Yu Gu, Yiheng Shu, Hao Yu, Xiao Liu, Yuxiao Dong, Jie Tang, Jayanth Srinivasa, Hugo Latapie, and Yu Su. 2024. Middleware for LLMs: Tools Are Instrumental for Language Agents in Complex Environments. InProceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 7646–7663

    2024

  9. [9]

    Zhicheng Guo, Sijie Cheng, Hao Wang, Shihao Liang, Yujia Qin, Peng Li, Zhiyuan Liu, Maosong Sun, and Yang Liu. 2024. StableToolBench: Towards Stable Large- Scale Benchmarking on Tool Learning of Large Language Models. InFind- ings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2024. 11143–11156. arXiv:2403.07714

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  10. [10]

    Bingguang Hao, Zengzhuang Xu, Yuntao Wen, Xinyi Xu, Yang Liu, Tong Zhao, Maolin Wang, Long Chen, Dong Wang, Yicheng Chen, et al . 2026. From Fail- ure to Mastery: Generating Hard Samples for Tool-Use Agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.01498(2026)

    arXiv 2026

  11. [11]

    Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen

    Edward J. Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. 2022. LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Models. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations. arXiv:2106.09685

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  12. [12]

    Caishuang Huang, Yang Qiao, Rongyu Zhang, Junjie Ye, Pu Lu, Wen Wu, Mengyu Zhou, Xiku Du, Tao Gui, Qi Zhang, and Xuanjing Huang. 2026. FinToolSyn: A Forward Synthesis Framework for Financial Tool-Use Dialogue Data with Dynamic Tool Retrieval.arXiv preprint(2026)

    2026

  13. [13]

    Yue Huang, Jiawen Shi, Yuan Li, Chenrui Fan, Siyuan Wu, Qihui Zhang, Yixin Liu, Pan Zhou, Yao Wan, Neil Gong, et al. 2024. MetaTool Benchmark for Large Lan- guage Models: Deciding Whether to Use Tools and Which to Use. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations

    2024

  14. [14]

    Zixian Huang, Kaichen Yang, Xu Huang, Feiyang Hao, Qiming Ge, Bowen Li, He Du, Kai Chen, and Qipeng Guo. 2026. How to Fine-Tune a Reasoning Model? A Teacher-Student Cooperation Framework to Synthesize Student-Consistent SFT Data.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.14164(2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  15. [15]

    Jimenez, John Yang, Alexander Wettig, Shunyu Yao, Kexin Pei, Ofir Press, and Karthik Narasimhan

    Carlos E. Jimenez, John Yang, Alexander Wettig, Shunyu Yao, Kexin Pei, Ofir Press, and Karthik Narasimhan. 2024. SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real- World GitHub Issues?. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations

    2024

  16. [16]

    Abdullatif Köksal, Marion Thaler, Ayyoob Imani, Ahmet Üstün, Anna Korhonen, and Hinrich Schütze. 2025. MURI: High-Quality Instruction Tuning Datasets for Low-Resource Languages via Reverse Instructions.Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics13 (2025), 1032–1055

    2025

  17. [17]

    Mojtaba Komeili, Kurt Shuster, and Jason Weston. 2022. Internet-Augmented Dialogue Generation. InProceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). 8460–8478

    2022

  18. [18]

    Ilia Kulikov, Chenxi Whitehouse, Tianhao Wu, Yixin Nie, Swarnadeep Saha, Eryk Helenowski, Weizhe Yuan, Olga Golovneva, Jack Lanchantin, Yoram Bachrach, Jakob Foerster, Xian Li, Han Fang, Sainbayar Sukhbaatar, and Jason Weston. 2026. AutoData: An Agentic Data Scientist to Create High Quality Synthetic Data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.25996(2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  19. [19]

    Minghao Li, Yingxiu Zhao, Bowen Yu, Feifan Song, Hangyu Li, Haiyang Yu, Zhoujun Li, Fei Huang, and Yongbin Li. 2023. API-Bank: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Tool-Augmented LLMs. InProceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. arXiv:2304.08244 https: //arxiv.org/abs/2304.08244

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  20. [20]

    Zihan Li, Yifan Zhang, Ming Chen, Tianyi Zhao, et al . 2025. ToolGrad: Ef- ficient Tool-Use Dataset Generation with Textual Gradients.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.04086(2025). arXiv:2508.04086

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    Xukun Liu, Zhiyuan Peng, Xiaoyuan Yi, Xing Xie, Lirong Xiang, Yuchen Liu, and Dongkuan Xu. 2024. ToolNet: Connecting Large Language Models with Massive Tools via Tool Graph.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.00839(2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    Jiarui Lu, Thomas Holleis, Yizhe Zhang, Bernhard Aumayer, Feng Nan, Haoping Bai, Shuang Ma, Shen Ma, Mengyu Li, Guoli Yin, et al . 2025. ToolSandbox: A Stateful, Conversational, Interactive Evaluation Benchmark for LLM Tool Use Capabilities. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL

    2025

  23. [23]

    Siyuan Luo, Nairong Zheng, Lin Zhou, Tiankuo Yao, Shengyou Yuan, Haojia Yu, Cong Pang, Jiapeng Luo, and Lewei Lu. 2026. ISE: An Execution-Grounded Recipe for Multi-Turn OS-Agent Trajectories.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.11520 (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  24. [24]

    Baolin Peng, Chunyuan Li, Pengcheng He, Michel Galley, and Jianfeng Gao. 2023. Instruction Tuning with GPT-4.arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.03277(2023)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  25. [25]

    Gerstein, Dahai Li, Zhiyuan Liu, and Maosong Sun

    Yujia Qin, Shi Liang, Yining Ye, Kunlun Zhu, Lan Yan, Ya-Ting Lu, Yankai Lin, Xiang Cong, Xiangru Tang, Bill Qian, Sihan Zhao, Runchu Tian, Ruobing Xie, Jie Zhou, Marc H. Gerstein, Dahai Li, Zhiyuan Liu, and Maosong Sun. 2023. ToolLLM: Facilitating Large Language Models to Master 16000+ Real-World APIs.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.16789(2023). doi:10.48550/a...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.16789 2023

  26. [26]

    Changle Qu, Sunhao Dai, Xiaochi Wei, Hengyi Cai, Shuaiqiang Wang, Dawei Yin, Jun Xu, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2025. Tool Learning with Large Language Models: A Survey.Frontiers of Computer Science19, 8 (2025), 198343

    2025

  27. [27]

    Priyam Sahoo, Gaurav Mittal, Xiaomin Li, Shengjie Ma, Benjamin Steenhoek, Pingping Lin, and Yu Hu. 2026. AgentLens: Revealing The Lucky Pass Problem in SWE-Agent Evaluation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.12925(2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  28. [28]

    Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Roberto Dessì, Roberta Raileanu, Maria Lomeli, Luke Zettlemoyer, Nicola Cancedda, and Thomas Scialom. 2023. Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Tools. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Vol. 36. arXiv:2302.04761

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  29. [29]

    Yuanzhe Shen, Zisu Huang, Zhengyuan Wang, Muzhao Tian, Zhengkang Guo, Chenyang Zhang, Shuaiyu Zhou, Zengjie Hu, Dailin Li, Jingwen Xu, Kaimin Wang, Wenhao Liu, Tianlong Li, Fengpeng Yue, Fenglu Hong, Cao Liu, and Ke Zeng. 2026. TRIP-Bench: A Benchmark for Long-Horizon Interactive Agents in Real-World Scenarios.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.01675(2026). doi:10...

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.01675 2026

  30. [30]

    Pradyumna Shome, Sashreek Krishnan, and Sauvik Das. 2026. Why Johnny Can’t Use Agents: Industry Aspirations vs. User Realities with AI Agents. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on AI and Agentic Systems (CAIS ’26). ACM, 597–619. doi:10.1145/3786335.3813140

    arXiv 2026

  31. [31]

    Harsh Soni. 2026. ToolFailBench: Diagnosing Tool-Use Failures in LLM Agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.04686(2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  32. [32]

    Qiaoyu Tang, Ziliang Deng, Hongyu Lin, Xianpei Han, Qiao Liang, Boxi Cao, and Le Sun. 2023. ToolAlpaca: Generalized Tool Learning for Language Models with 3000 Simulated Cases. InProceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. arXiv:2306.05301

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  33. [33]

    Jiahao Wang, Bolin Zhang, Qianlong Du, Jiajun Zhang, and Dianhui Chu

  34. [34]

    Lei Wang, Chen Ma, Xueyang Feng, Zeyu Zhang, Hao Yang, Jingsen Zhang, Zhiyuan Chen, Jiakai Tang, Xu Chen, Yankai Lin, et al. 2024. A Survey on Large Language Model Based Autonomous Agents.Frontiers of Computer Science18, 6 (2024), 186345

    2024

  35. [35]

    Smith, Daniel Khashabi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi

    Yizhong Wang, Yeganeh Kordi, Swaroop Mishra, Alisa Liu, Noah A. Smith, Daniel Khashabi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2023. Self-Instruct: Aligning Language Models with Self-Generated Instructions. InProceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. arXiv:2212.10560

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  36. [36]

    Yue Wang, Xinrui Wang, Juntao Li, Jinxiong Chang, Qishen Zhang, Zhongyi Liu, Guannan Zhang, and Min Zhang. 2023. Harnessing the Power of David against Goliath: Exploring Instruction Data Generation without Using Closed-Source Models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.12711(2023). doi:10.48550/arXiv.2308.12711

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2308.12711 2023

  37. [37]

    Ziyi Wang, Yuxuan Lu, Yimeng Zhang, Jing Huang, Jiri Gesi, Xianfeng Tang, Chen Luo, Yisi Sang, Hanqing Lu, Manling Li, and Dakuo Wang. 2026. Trajectory2Task: Training Robust Tool-Calling Agents with Synthesized Yet Verifiable Data for Complex User Intents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.20144(2026). doi:10.48550/arXiv. 2601.20144

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.20144 2026

  38. [38]

    Le, Denny Zhou, et al

    Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V. Le, Denny Zhou, et al. 2022. Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Rea- soning in Large Language Models. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Vol. 35. 24824–24837

    2022

  39. [39]

    Zhiheng Xi, Wenxiang Chen, Xin Guo, Wei He, Yiwen Ding, Boyang Hong, Ming Zhang, Junzhe Wang, Senjie Jin, Enyu Zhou, et al. 2025. The Rise and Potential of Large Language Model Based Agents: A Survey.Science China Information Sciences68, 2 (2025), 121101

    2025

  40. [40]

    Jingxu Xie, Dylan Xu, Xuandong Zhao, and Dawn Song. 2025. AgentSynth: Scalable Task Generation for Generalist Computer-Use Agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.14205(2025)

    arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    Zhangchen Xu, Adriana Meza Soria, Shawn Tan, Anurag Roy, Ashish Sunil Agrawal, Radha Poovendran, and Rameswar Panda. 2025. Toucan: Synthesizing 1.5M Tool-Agentic Data from Real-World MCP Environments.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.01179(2025)

    arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    Chen Yang, Ran Le, Yun Xing, Zhenwei An, Zongchao Chen, Wayne Xin Zhao, Yang Song, and Tao Zhang. 2025. ToolMind Technical Report: A Large-Scale, Reasoning-Enhanced Tool-Use Dataset.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.15718(2025)

    arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    Zheng, Tao Gui, and Xipeng Qiu

    Jie Yang, Honglin Guo, Lifeng Ji, Jiazheng Zhou, Rui Zheng, Zhikai Lei, Shuo Zhang, Zhiheng Xi, Shichun Liu, Yuxin Wang, Bo Wang, Y. Zheng, Tao Gui, and Xipeng Qiu. 2026. ABC-Bench: Benchmarking Agentic Backend Coding in AgenticDev ’26, October 12, 2026, Munich, Germany Ouajdi, Giannuzzo, et al. Real-World Development.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.11077(2026)...

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.11077 2026

  44. [44]

    Jimenez, Alexander Wettig, Kilian Lieret, Shunyu Yao, Karthik Narasimhan, and Ofir Press

    John Yang, Carlos E. Jimenez, Alexander Wettig, Kilian Lieret, Shunyu Yao, Karthik Narasimhan, and Ofir Press. 2024. SWE-agent: Agent-Computer Inter- faces Enable Automated Software Engineering. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Vol. 37. 50528–50652

    2024

  45. [45]

    Yuming Yang, Mingyoung Lai, Wanxu Zhao, Xiaoran Fan, Zhiheng Xi, Mingqi Wu, Chiyue Huang, Jun Zhao, Haijun Lv, Jian Tong, et al. 2026. Which Reasoning Trajectories Teach Students to Reason Better? A Simple Metric of Informative Alignment. InProceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Com- putational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). 4...

    2026

  46. [46]

    Yuming Yang, Yang Nan, Junjie Ye, Shihan Dou, Xiao Wang, Shuo Li, Huijie Lv, Tao Gui, Qi Zhang, and Xuanjing Huang. 2025. Measuring Data Diversity for Instruction Tuning: A Systematic Analysis and a Reliable Metric. InProceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). 18530–18549

    2025

  47. [47]

    Shunyu Yao, Noah Shinn, Pedram Razavi, and Karthik Narasimhan. 2024. 𝜏- bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domains. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.12045(2024). arXiv:2406.12045

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  48. [48]

    Griffiths, Yuan Cao, and Karthik Narasimhan

    Shunyu Yao, Dian Yu, Jeffrey Zhao, Izhak Shafran, Thomas L. Griffiths, Yuan Cao, and Karthik Narasimhan. 2023. Tree of Thoughts: Deliberate Problem Solving with Large Language Models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.10601(2023). arXiv:2305.10601 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.10601

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  49. [49]

    Shunyu Yao, Jeffrey Zhao, Dian Yu, Nan Du, Izhak Shafran, Karthik Narasimhan, and Yuan Cao. 2023. ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations. arXiv:2210.03629

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  50. [50]

    Asaf Yehudai, Lilach Eden, Alan Li, Guy Uziel, Yilun Zhao, Roy Bar-Haim, Arman Cohan, and Michal Shmueli-Scheuer. 2026. A Survey on Evaluation of LLM-based Agents. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2026. 26690–26714

    2026

  51. [51]

    Peijie Yu, Wei Liu, Yifan Yang, Jinjian Li, Zelong Zhang, Xiao Feng, and Feng Zhang. 2026. Benchmarking LLM Tool-Use in the Wild.arXiv preprint(2026)

    2026

  52. [52]

    Shengyu Zhang, Linfeng Dong, Xiaoya Li, Sen Zhang, Xiaofei Sun, Shuhe Wang, Jiwei Li, Runyi Hu, Tianwei Zhang, Fei Wu, and Guoyin Wang. 2025. Instruction Tuning for Large Language Models: A Survey.Comput. Surveys58 (2025), 1–36. doi:10.1145/3777411

    doi:10.1145/3777411 2025

  53. [53]

    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. 2024. ToolBeHonest: A Multi-level Hallucination Diagnostic Benchmark for Tool-Augmented Large Language Models. InProceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Pro...

    2024

  54. [54]

    Yifan Zhang, Jingxuan Li, Zhiyun Wang, Zhengting He, Qingfeng Guan, Jianfeng Lin, and Wenhao Yu. 2024. Geospatial Large Language Model Trained with a Simulated Environment for Generating Tool-Use Chains Autonomously.Interna- tional Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation136 (2024), 104312. doi:10.1016/j.jag.2024.104312

    arXiv 2024

  55. [55]

    Yuchen Zhuang, Yue Yu, Kuan Wang, Haotian Sun, and Chao Zhang. 2023. ToolQA: A Dataset for LLM Question Answering with External Tools. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Vol. 36. 50117–50143

    2023

  56. [2024]

    A Survey on Data Selection for LLM Instruction Tuning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.05123(2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024