PredAct-Bench: Benchmarking Tool-Augmented Dialogue under Controlled Tool Noise

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.02372v1
• Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2026 15:15:55 GMT
• Title: PredAct-Bench: Benchmarking Tool-Augmented Dialogue under Controlled Tool Noise
• Abstract summary: We introduce PREDACTBENCH, a benchmark for evaluating dialogue agents paired with statistically imperfect tools.<n>We build a benchmark for AI-assisted human decision-making, where the AI uses noisy predictors to help guide a user.<n>We evaluate 13 state-of-the-art closed and open source LLMs on two educational datasets.
• Score: 11.530655589494868
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in task-oriented dialogue systems that support multi-step decision-making in high-stakes domains such as education, healthcare, and finance. However, existing benchmarks typically assume perfectly accurate tool outputs, overlooking the reality that deployed systems must operate with noisy tools and human decision-makers whose trust in the agent is itself uncertain. Such conditions are common in practice, for example, a clinician using a diagnostic prediction tool or an advisor relying on a model that forecasts student outcomes from historical records. We introduce PREDACTBENCH, a benchmark for evaluating dialogue agents paired with statistically imperfect tools, using education as a measurable testbed where ground truth outcomes and clear intervention decisions are available. First, we build a benchmark for AI-assisted human decision-making, where the AI uses noisy predictors to help guide a user. Second, we introduce episode-level Relative AI-Reliance (RAIR) and Relative self-reliance (RSR) metrics, extending prior trust calibration framework to multi-turn dialogue. Third, we evaluate 13 state-of-the-art closed and open source LLMs on two educational datasets, OULAD (real assessment trajectories from the UK Open University) and PREDACT-CS (60 courses with real final grade outcomes and synthetically generated weekly score trajectories), alongside a human study with instructors and teaching assistants. We find that when tools are noisy, SOTA models are supposed to provide visibility to teachers so that they do not over-rely on wrong suggestions or hallucinations, but current models fail to do that. We offer PREDACTBENCH to help build better LLMs as AI decision support systems to help teachers.

Related papers

• Evaluating LLMs for Answering Student Questions in Introductory Programming Courses [0.0]
  This study investigates the capabilities of Large Language Models to safely and effectively assist educators in answering student questions within a CS1 programming course.<n>Because traditional text-matching metrics are insufficient for evaluating open-ended educational responses, we developed and validated a custom LLM-as-a-Judge metric.<n>Our findings demonstrate that models, such as Gemini 3 flash, can surpass the quality baseline of typical educator responses, achieving high alignment with expert pedagogical standards.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-30T11:22:58Z)
• RecThinker: An Agentic Framework for Tool-Augmented Reasoning in Recommendation [63.74915464611075]
  RecThinker is an agentic framework for tool-augmented reasoning in recommendation.<n>We develop a suite of specialized tools for RecThinker, enabling the model to acquire user item-side and collaborative information.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-10T16:07:17Z)
• One Model to Critique Them All: Rewarding Agentic Tool-Use via Efficient Reasoning [54.580646706013965]
  Reward models (RMs) play a critical role in aligning large language models with human preferences.<n>We introduce ToolRM, a family of lightweight generative RMs tailored for general tool-use scenarios.<n>To build these models, we propose a novel pipeline that constructs pairwise preference data using rule-based scoring and multidimensional sampling.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-30T06:08:27Z)
• How can we assess human-agent interactions? Case studies in software agent design [52.953425368394306]
  We make two major steps towards the rigorous assessment of human-agent interactions.<n>We propose PULSE, a framework for more efficient human-centric evaluation of agent designs.<n>We deploy the framework on a large-scale web platform built around the open-source software agent OpenHands.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-10T19:04:28Z)
• How Can Input Reformulation Improve Tool Usage Accuracy in a Complex Dynamic Environment? A Study on $τ$-bench [58.114899897566964]
  In a multi-turn conversational environment, large language models (LLMs) often struggle with consistent reasoning and adherence to domain-specific policies.<n>We propose the Input-Reformulation Multi-Agent (IRMA) framework, which automatically reformulates user queries augmented with relevant domain rules.<n>IRMA significantly outperforms ReAct, Function Calling, and Self-Reflection by 16.1%, 12.7%, and 19.1%, respectively.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-28T15:57:33Z)
• Maximizing Signal in Human-Model Preference Alignment [0.0]
  This paper argues that in cases in which end users need to agree with the decisions made by ML models, models should be trained and evaluated on data that represent their preferences.<n>We show that noise in labeling disagreement can be minimized by adhering to proven methodological best practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-06T19:10:57Z)
• Towards Efficient Educational Chatbots: Benchmarking RAG Frameworks [2.362412515574206]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have proven immensely beneficial in education by capturing vast amounts of literature-based information.<n>We propose a generative AI-powered GATE question-answering framework that leverages LLMs to explain GATE solutions and support students in their exam preparation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-02T08:11:07Z)
• Adaptive Tool Use in Large Language Models with Meta-Cognition Trigger [49.81945268343162]
  We propose MeCo, an adaptive decision-making strategy for external tool use.<n>MeCo quantifies metacognitive scores by capturing high-level cognitive signals in the representation space.<n>MeCo is fine-tuning-free and incurs minimal cost.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-18T15:45:01Z)
• 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.<n>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.<n>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)
• Bring Your Own Data! Self-Supervised Evaluation for Large Language Models [52.15056231665816]
  We propose a framework for self-supervised evaluation of Large Language Models (LLMs) We demonstrate self-supervised evaluation strategies for measuring closed-book knowledge, toxicity, and long-range context dependence. We find strong correlations between self-supervised and human-supervised evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-23T17:59:09Z)
• Supporting Human-AI Collaboration in Auditing LLMs with LLMs [33.56822240549913]
  Large language models have been shown to be biased and behave irresponsibly. It is crucial to audit these language models rigorously. Existing auditing tools leverage either or both humans and AI to find failures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-19T21:59:04Z)

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

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.