REVIEW 1 cited by
Benchmarking Failures in Tool-Augmented 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
Benchmarking Failures in Tool-Augmented Language Models
read the original abstract
The integration of tools has extended the capabilities of language models (LMs) beyond vanilla text generation to versatile scenarios. However, tool-augmented language models (TaLMs) often assume 'perfect' information access and tool availability, which may not hold in the real world. To systematically study TaLMs' imperfections, we introduce the FAIL-TALMS benchmark, featuring two major failures: under-specified user queries and non-available tools. FAIL-TALMS contains 1,749 examples using 906 tools across 21 categories, including single- and multi-tool usage. We evaluate top-performing proprietary and open-source models, and find all current models except for Claude struggle to recognize missing tools or information. Further, to study possible mitigation of the failures, we enable real-time human interaction, named the Ask-and-Help (AAH) method, to provide missing information or replace non-functional tools. While AAH can help models solve tasks more correctly when queries are under-specified, it brings minimal benefit when complex tools are broken.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Representation Robustness Under Executable Reasoning Constraints in Large Language Models for Mathematical Problem Solving
LLM math accuracy varies across equivalent problem representations, and executable-reasoning scaffolding redistributes rather than removes the errors.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.