Related papers: SpecTool: A Benchmark for Characterizing Errors in Tool-Use LLMs

SpecTool: A Benchmark for Characterizing Errors in Tool-Use LLMs

URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2411.13547v1
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2024 18:56:22 GMT
Title: SpecTool: A Benchmark for Characterizing Errors in Tool-Use LLMs
Authors: Shirley Kokane, Ming Zhu, Tulika Awalgaonkar, Jianguo Zhang, Thai Hoang, Akshara Prabhakar, Zuxin Liu, Tian Lan, Liangwei Yang, Juntao Tan, Rithesh Murthy, Weiran Yao, Zhiwei Liu, Juan Carlos Niebles, Huan Wang, Shelby Heinecke, Caiming Xiong, Silivo Savarese,
Abstract summary: SpecTool is a new benchmark to identify error patterns in LLM output on tool-use tasks. We show that even the most prominent LLMs exhibit these error patterns in their outputs. Researchers can use the analysis and insights from SPECTOOL to guide their error mitigation strategies.
Score: 77.79172008184415
License:
Abstract: Evaluating the output of Large Language Models (LLMs) is one of the most critical aspects of building a performant compound AI system. Since the output from LLMs propagate to downstream steps, identifying LLM errors is crucial to system performance. A common task for LLMs in AI systems is tool use. While there are several benchmark environments for evaluating LLMs on this task, they typically only give a success rate without any explanation of the failure cases. To solve this problem, we introduce SpecTool, a new benchmark to identify error patterns in LLM output on tool-use tasks. Our benchmark data set comprises of queries from diverse environments that can be used to test for the presence of seven newly characterized error patterns. Using SPECTOOL , we show that even the most prominent LLMs exhibit these error patterns in their outputs. Researchers can use the analysis and insights from SPECTOOL to guide their error mitigation strategies.

Related papers

Self-Training Large Language Models for Tool-Use Without Demonstrations [15.17750971071501]
Large language models (LLMs) remain prone to factual inaccuracies and computational errors. Recent work augmented LLMs with tools to mitigate these shortcomings, but often requires curated gold tool-use demonstrations. This paper investigates whether LLMs can learn to use tools without demonstrations.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-02-09T12:06:10Z)
A Real-World Benchmark for Evaluating Fine-Grained Issue Solving Capabilities of Large Language Models [11.087034068992653]
FAUN-Eval is a benchmark specifically designed to evaluate the Fine-grAined issUe solviNg capabilities of LLMs. It is constructed using a dataset curated from 30 well-known GitHub repositories. We evaluate ten LLMs with FAUN-Eval, including four closed-source and six open-source models.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-11-27T03:25:44Z)
Learning to Ask: When LLM Agents Meet Unclear Instruction [55.65312637965779]
Large language models (LLMs) can leverage external tools for addressing a range of tasks unattainable through language skills alone. We evaluate the performance of LLMs tool-use under imperfect instructions, analyze the error patterns, and build a challenging tool-use benchmark called Noisy ToolBench. We propose a novel framework, Ask-when-Needed (AwN), which prompts LLMs to ask questions to users whenever they encounter obstacles due to unclear instructions.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-08-31T23:06:12Z)
SELF-GUIDE: Better Task-Specific Instruction Following via Self-Synthetic Finetuning [70.21358720599821]
Large language models (LLMs) hold the promise of solving diverse tasks when provided with appropriate natural language prompts. We propose SELF-GUIDE, a multi-stage mechanism in which we synthesize task-specific input-output pairs from the student LLM. We report an absolute improvement of approximately 15% for classification tasks and 18% for generation tasks in the benchmark's metrics.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-07-16T04:41:58Z)
Anomaly Detection of Tabular Data Using LLMs [54.470648484612866]
We show that pre-trained large language models (LLMs) are zero-shot batch-level anomaly detectors. We propose an end-to-end fine-tuning strategy to bring out the potential of LLMs in detecting real anomalies.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-06-24T04:17:03Z)
Are you still on track!? Catching LLM Task Drift with Activations [55.75645403965326]
Task drift allows attackers to exfiltrate data or influence the LLM's output for other users. We show that a simple linear classifier can detect drift with near-perfect ROC AUC on an out-of-distribution test set. We observe that this approach generalizes surprisingly well to unseen task domains, such as prompt injections, jailbreaks, and malicious instructions.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-06-02T16:53:21Z)
MEIC: Re-thinking RTL Debug Automation using LLMs [18.964523115622928]
This work introduces a novel framework, Make Each Iteration Count (MEIC) MEIC is suitable for identifying and correcting both syntax and function errors. To evaluate our framework, we provide an open-source dataset comprising 178 common RTL programming errors.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-05-10T22:32:39Z)
Evaluating LLMs at Detecting Errors in LLM Responses [30.645694514606507]
This work introduces ReaLMistake, the first error detection benchmark consisting of objective, realistic, and diverse errors made by LLMs. We use ReaLMistake to evaluate error detectors based on 12 Large Language Models.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-04-04T17:19:47Z)
PPTC-R benchmark: Towards Evaluating the Robustness of Large Language Models for PowerPoint Task Completion [96.47420221442397]
We construct adversarial user instructions by attacking user instructions at sentence, semantic, and multi-language levels. We test 3 closed-source and 4 open-source LLMs using a benchmark that incorporates robustness settings. We find that GPT-4 exhibits the highest performance and strong robustness in our benchmark.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-03-06T15:33:32Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.