Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

ToolBeHonest: A Multi-level Hallucination Diagnostic Benchmark for Tool-Augmented 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

arxiv 2406.20015 v2 pith:FKDMI3QL submitted 2024-06-28 cs.CL cs.AI

classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords modelsbenchmarkdiagnostictoolsanalysisbreadthdepthhallucination
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Tool-augmented large language models (LLMs) are rapidly being integrated into real-world applications. Due to the lack of benchmarks, the community has yet to fully understand the hallucination issues within these models. To address this challenge, we introduce a comprehensive diagnostic benchmark, ToolBH. Specifically, we assess the LLM's hallucinations through two perspectives: depth and breadth. In terms of depth, we propose a multi-level diagnostic process, including (1) solvability detection, (2) solution planning, and (3) missing-tool analysis. For breadth, we consider three scenarios based on the characteristics of the toolset: missing necessary tools, potential tools, and limited functionality tools. Furthermore, we developed seven tasks and collected 700 evaluation samples through multiple rounds of manual annotation. The results show the significant challenges presented by the ToolBH benchmark. The current advanced models Gemini-1.5-Pro and GPT-4o only achieve total scores of 45.3 and 37.0, respectively, on a scale of 100. In this benchmark, larger model parameters do not guarantee better performance; the training data and response strategies also play crucial roles in tool-enhanced LLM scenarios. Our diagnostic analysis indicates that the primary reason for model errors lies in assessing task solvability. Additionally, open-weight models suffer from performance drops with verbose replies, whereas proprietary models excel with longer reasoning.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. SAAG: Structured Agent Assessment and Grounding

    cs.AI 2026-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    SAAG decomposes agent-calling evaluation into registry, schema, and grounding stages, and its structured feedback reduces value hallucination and improves solve rate in small models, though the argument-precision clai...

  2. Beyond the Final Answer: Evaluating the Reasoning Trajectories of Tool-Augmented Agents

    cs.AI 2025-10 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    TRACE uses an evidence bank to score tool-augmented LLM agents on efficiency, hallucination, and adaptivity without ground-truth trajectories.

Pith tools