Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 46 references

PAUSE: A User-Centric Benchmark for Personal AI Assistants in Unified Service Environments

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read PAUSE shows that assistant readiness is not tool-call accuracy: in a unified, stateful service environment, even top proprietary models complete fewer than 70% of hard configuration-aware tasks.

desk verdict PAUSE is a genuinely useful benchmark for stateful, permission-aware personal assistants, and the qualitative finding is plausible, but the exact numbers need cleanup before the headline claim can be trusted at face value. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.27354 v1 pith:LX5UR5HH submitted 2026-07-29 cs.AI

Haoyu Chen , Xirui Shi , Yuyao Wang , Jerry Chen , Di Niu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AI
keywords BenchmarkLargeLanguageModelAgentsAgentToolCallingPersonalAIassistantsStatefulserviceenvironmentsSystemconfigurationreasoningLLM-as-judgeevaluationTasksynthesispipeline
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

PAUSE argues that personal AI assistants should be evaluated as agents inside a single persistent service environment, not as isolated tool callers. It builds a healthcare-management sandbox with 57 tools, where tasks depend on hidden system configurations, gated resources, subscriptions, and user-mediated actions such as wallet top-ups. Across 180 tasks, the benchmark reports that every tested model—including the top proprietary ones—completes under 70% of hard data & log tracking tasks, with the best reaching 59.1%, and that errors concentrate in system-configuration reasoning. If the benchmark is valid, current assistants are not ready for realistic unified service deployment, and the paper's synthesis pipeline offers a way to produce more such tests at scale.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the partially observed, dual-control environment: the latent state $s_t=(D_u,I_u,C_u)$ is not visible to either participant, and the assistant acts through 50 assistant tools while the simulated user acts through 7 user tools that can alter permissions, connect sources, or top up the wallet. Generation is grounded in template-sampled injected data; an LLM composer turns a rendered state into a task instruction plus verifiable target conditions $\tau$, an oracle-guided rollout policy collects real-execution reference trajectories, and an LLM committee filters and aligns trajectories to those targets. Evaluation then runs three instruments in parallel—target-based LLM judgment, trajectory-level tool-call overlap (precision/recall/F1 over tool elements), and deterministic state-based verification for shopping tasks—so that failures can be attributed to configuration reasoning rather than tool misuse.

What would settle it

Take the 57 hard data & log tracking tasks and re-score each with a deterministic state checker that, after every turn, verifies each target condition against the sandboxed environment state using hand-written state annotations rather than LLM judgment. If the deterministic scores reproduce the LLM-judged completion rates within a small margin, the LLM pipeline is sound; if they diverge widely, the reported under-70% result is at least partly an artifact of target generation and judging.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that realistic personal-assistant performance cannot be inferred from tool-selection or workflow-execution accuracy. PAUSE operationalizes this by placing assistants in a unified service environment with latent state $s_t=(D_u,I_u,C_u)$ (user data, profile/account information, and hidden system configurations) that is only partially observable to the agent; both the assistant and a simulated user act through separate action spaces, so tasks can require the user to top up a wallet, grant permissions, or connect a data source. On its 180-task test set, top proprietary models reach 85–95% task completion on easy retrieval tasks but only 10.5–59.1% on hard data & log tracking tasks that require configuration reasoning, and their shopping-task aggregate scores peak at 0.721, with quantity/size, voucher, and budget constraints the weakest components. Error analysis attributes the remaining frontier-model failures primarily to system configuration reasoning rather than tool misuse, and an ablation with explicit configuration-policy guidance improves but does not close the gap.

Load-bearing premise

The benchmark's ground truth rests on LLM-produced targets, LLM-selected reference trajectories, and LLM judges; the paper's Limitations section concedes that its annotation protocol does not explicitly enforce state verification over all key variables and that human-LLM agreement on hard tasks is only 77–87%, so if those generated targets do not match real user needs, the measured sub-70% failure rates would be an artifact of the pipeline rather than a true capability gap.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Tool-only and API-coverage benchmarks overstate assistant readiness: adding persistent user state, permissions, and hidden configuration drops even top proprietary models below 70% task completion on hard tasks.
  • For strong models the binding constraint is system-configuration reasoning—inferring gated sources, subscriptions, and permission prerequisites—not the mechanics of calling tools.
  • Because target-based LLM judgment and trajectory-overlap F1 move together, the multi-regime evaluation gives a behaviorally grounded ranking even where no canonical solution trajectory exists.
  • Providing explicit configuration-policy guidance to agents improves performance but does not close the gap, so prompt-level interventions alone will not make assistants robust.
  • The user-centric synthesis pipeline can generate coherent environment states, tasks, and annotated reference trajectories at scale, supporting larger benchmarks and downstream training or distillation.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the PAUSE measurement transfers, a practical test is to give the same agents an explicit state-tracking scratchpad (permissions, subscriptions, connected sources) and see whether hard-task completion rises—this would show whether the deficit is inferential rather than fundamental.
  • The same gating structure—wallet balance, membership tier, disconnected data sources, permission grants—appears across consumer finance, travel, and commerce, so building PAUSE-style tasks in those domains would test whether the configuration-reasoning bottleneck is general.
  • The paper's own caveat about annotation points to a concrete improvement: add deterministic target-state verification during task synthesis, so ground truth is checked against the sandbox before LLM judging, not only via a committee.
  • Per-task agreement between LLM judges and trajectory overlap is not reported; examining disagreements may reveal which tasks have shaky generated targets and which reflect genuinely ambiguous user requests.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces PAUSE, a benchmark for evaluating personal AI assistants as tool-augmented agents operating in a unified, stateful service environment centered on health management. The environment includes persistent user data, system configurations, permissions, and gated tools; tasks span data/log tracking and shopping. Evaluation is hybrid: open-ended data/log tasks are scored by an LLM judge against LLM-generated target sets, supplemented by trajectory-level tool-call overlap (precision/recall/F1); shopping tasks use deterministic state-based verification. A synthesis pipeline generates tasks and reference trajectories via LLM committees and real execution. Experiments on nine models report that even the strongest proprietary models stay below 70% target completion on hard data/log tasks, with error analyses attributing failures mainly to system-configuration reasoning. A human-agreement study reports 77–87% agreement between LLM judges and human annotations on hard tasks.

Significance. If the results hold, PAUSE addresses a real gap: existing tool-use benchmarks largely neglect persistent user state, permissions, and configuration-aware reasoning. The benchmark's strengths are its executable sandbox with real tool calls, the hybrid deterministic-plus-semantic evaluation, the user-simulation interaction protocol, the human-agreement check, and the public release of code. The shopping-task results provide a deterministically verified signal that is independent of LLM judging, and the error analysis offers interpretable failure categories. However, the headline open-ended results derive from a fully LLM-mediated ground-truth pipeline, so the significance depends on additional validation of the generated targets and reference trajectories.

major comments (5)
  1. [§3.2, §5.4, §7] Sections 3.2 and Tables 5–6: the open-ended task-completion scores rest on target sets 𝝉 produced by an LLM composer, reference trajectories selected by an LLM committee, and judgments by an LLM evaluator, with no independent state-based ground truth for most key variables. Section 7 concedes that the annotation protocol 'does not explicitly enforce state verification over all key variables,' and Table 8 shows human–LLM agreement of only 77–87% on hard trajectories. Because tasks are retained only when an LLM-generated trajectory satisfies all targets, the 57 hard tasks are selected jointly with the scoring signal. These facts make the central claim that frontier models 'fail to reach 70% task completion' contingent on the calibration of the LLM target generator; if the targets omit or add state variables that a human would weigh differently, every TC value in Table 6 shifts. The paper should provide a human audit of a random sample of targets and reference trajectories, report per-target agreement rather than trajectory-level agreement, and analyze the sensitivity of the reported TC to perturbations of the target set.
  2. [§3.3 and Abstract] TC is defined as the average fraction of satisfied targets per task, but the abstract and Section 1 describe this as 'task completion.' Under the stated metric, an average TC of 70% does not imply that 70% of tasks were completed; it is consistent with every task being partially completed. The headline claim should be re-expressed as 'average target completion below 70%,' and the paper should additionally report the fraction of tasks with TC=1 (full-task success), which is the more natural reading of task completion.
  3. [§3.3 and Tables 5–6] The reported F1 values do not match the harmonic mean of the reported precision and recall in most rows. For example, Table 5 (Gemini-3-Flash) reports P=0.841, R=0.796, F1=0.796, whereas 2PR/(P+R)=0.818; Table 6 (GPT-5) reports P=0.494, R=0.555, F1=0.479, while the harmonic mean is 0.523. If F1 is averaged over tasks after per-trajectory computation, the aggregation formula should be stated explicitly and the table should say so; as written, the evaluation metric is not reproducible.
  4. [§4.1 and §7] All performance tables report single point estimates with no variance, confidence intervals, or pass^k/pass@k values, despite the acknowledged stochasticity of LLM rollouts. For a benchmark intended to rank models, the absence of repeated evaluation makes it impossible to distinguish true capability gaps from sampling noise; the paper should include standard errors or alternative-seed results for at least the main models and task groups.
  5. [§4.3 and Figure 3] The claim that the trajectory-overlap metric provides an 'independent signal' is overstated. The F1 score is computed against the same reference trajectory that the LLM committee selected in Section 3.2, and the TC score is judged against target sets aligned to that same trajectory; both measures therefore share the same underlying ground-truth choice. They are independent in mechanism (rule-based vs. LLM-judged) but not in reference. The human-agreement study in Section 5.4 is the correct validation, but it needs reporting details: sample size, number of annotators, inter-annotator agreement, and whether human judgments were made from the trajectory alone or with the reference summary.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'maintaining consistency with environment state, authorization constraints over multi-turn interactions' needs an 'and' before 'authorization constraints'; as written, the grammar is awkward.
  2. [Figure 3] Both panels spell the model name as 'Gemini-3-Falsh'; it should be 'Gemini-3-Flash'.
  3. [Figure 7 caption] The caption says 'data & long tracking tasks'; this should be 'data & log tracking tasks'.
  4. [Table 3] The table reports 0.03 average user calls for Gemini-2.5-Pro on easy tasks, although easy tasks are described as requiring no user tool calls (Section 4.1 and Table 2). Please clarify whether this is a rounding artifact or an occasional user action.
  5. [Table 8] The table would benefit from reporting the number of sampled trajectories and annotators, and from a precise definition of 'agreement' (per target, per trajectory, or per task).
  6. [§3.2] The notation I(D,D_k) for the initial state composition is not defined; please define the injection function explicitly.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No central circularity: PAUSE's headline TC scores are defined from an explicit LLM-generated target set rather than derived from the evaluated models; only the §4.3 'independent signal' claim is self-referential because F1 and TC share the same LLM-selected reference trajectory.

  1. other [Section 4.3 (Cross-Metric Consistency Analysis), built on Section 3.2 trajectory selection and Section 3.3 overlap definitions.]
    "This consistency indicates that LLM-based evaluation is behaviorally grounded, with the overlap metric providing an independent signal that corroborates its reliability."

    The trajectory overlap F1 is computed against the preferred reference trajectory ξ* selected by the LLM committee, and that reference is 'explicitly aligned against the predefined target set τ'; tasks for which no trajectory satisfies all targets are removed. Therefore F1 and TC are both constructed from the same LLM-generated τ/ξ* pair: TC scores satisfaction of τ, while F1 scores similarity to a trajectory chosen to satisfy τ. Their positive correlation is expected by construction and cannot independently corroborate LLM-as-judge reliability. This is a circularity in the validation argument of §4.3 only; the headline task-completion scores are defined directly from τ and are not derived from F1.

full rationale

PAUSE is a benchmark-construction paper, not a derivation chain. The central claim—that even frontier proprietary models fail to reach 70% task completion on hard stateful tasks—is computed by the fixed definition TC = 1/m Σ I(τ_j) against target sets τ generated by an LLM composer and filtered by LLM rollouts. That is a validity/calibration concern about annotation quality, not circularity: the evaluated models are not used to fit τ, and the deterministic shopping tasks (Table 7) provide an independent state-verification regime with a broadly consistent model ranking. The Limitations section's admission that 'our current annotation protocol does not explicitly enforce state verification over all key variables' and the 77–87% human-agreement rates are accuracy risks, not by-construction reductions. The only genuinely circular element is the secondary claim in §4.3 that trajectory overlap is an 'independent signal' corroborating LLM evaluation, since F1 is measured against the same LLM-selected reference trajectory aligned to the same LLM-generated targets used for TC. This self-referential consistency check does not undermine the main task-completion conclusion, so the overall circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

PAUSE is an empirical benchmark rather than a derivation, so there are no fitted free parameters. Its validity rests on assumptions about the realism of the simulated environment, the reliability of LLM-generated annotations and references, the fidelity of the user simulator, and the appropriateness of the overlap metric. Each assumption is flagged above.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption LLM-generated target conditions and reference trajectories are valid ground truth for open-ended assistant tasks.
    Section 3.2 describes LLM-based task generation and trajectory annotation, with no full state verification; Section 7 acknowledges this.
  • domain assumption The simulated sandbox environment faithfully represents real personal service constraints (permissions, subscriptions, gated resources).
    The environment is synthetic and inspired by real health platforms (Appendix A); realism is asserted, not validated against production APIs.
  • domain assumption The user simulator is a realistic proxy for human users.
    User actions and instructions are generated by an LLM roleplayer (Gemini-3-Flash); no human user study validates the simulation.
  • domain assumption Trajectory overlap F1 is a valid measure of behavioral quality.
    Section 3.3 defines F1 over tool-call multisets, treating all calls equally and ignoring order and argument semantics; multiple valid trajectories can exist, so overlap is a heuristic rather than ground truth.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of PAUSE: A User-Centric Benchmark for Personal AI Assistants in Unified Service Environments." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LX5UR5HH

@misc{pith2026260727354,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: PAUSE: A User-Centric Benchmark for Personal AI Assistants in Unified Service Environments},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LX5UR5HH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.27354}
}
read the original abstract

Personal AI assistants are increasingly deployed as task-oriented, tool-augmented agents that operate within unified service environments to support everyday user activities. In realistic settings, such assistants must reason over persistent user state, respect user-specific configurations and permissions, and sustain long-horizon, constraint-aware interactions across multiple services. Existing benchmarks, however, often fragment service contexts or abstract away user state, limiting their ability to evaluate user-centric personal assistant behavior in realistic service settings. We introduce PAUSE, a user-centric benchmark for evaluating personal AI assistants in stateful, service-integrated environments. PAUSE captures core challenges of real-world assistant deployment by requiring agents to coordinate actions across heterogeneous user-owned resources while maintaining consistency with environment state, authorization constraints over multi-turn interactions. The benchmark incorporates explicit user-agent interaction via realistic user simulation, enabling evaluation beyond static tool execution. To support principled and reproducible evaluation, PAUSE adopts a multi-regime evaluation framework aligned with task characteristics. Open-ended service management tasks are assessed using semantic and trajectory-level behavioral metrics, while constraint-intensive tasks admit deterministic, state-based verification. Benchmark results show that even state-of-the-art proprietary models fail to reach 70% task completion on scenarios requiring stateful reasoning and configuration awareness, revealing consistent and interpretable failure patterns. Finally, we present a user-centric synthesis pipeline that enables scalable generation of coherent service environments, user configurations, and reliably annotated tasks, supporting benchmark extensibility and future research.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.27354 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. System Overview. PAUSE simulates a user-centric [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of the PAUSE pipeline, which consists of three stages: (1) user-centric task generation, (2) guided trajectory [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Alignment between task completion scores and tra [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Error type distribution across three representative [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Case summary of calorie burn misinterpreted as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Error type distribution across three representative [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Representative few-shot task instructions and target [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2026.TBox: AI Assistant Platform in the Alipay Ecosystem

    Ant Group. 2026.TBox: AI Assistant Platform in the Alipay Ecosystem. https: //tbox.alipay.com/ An AI agent creation and deployment platform integrated into the Alipay ecosystem, supporting everyday service scenarios such as lifestyle assistance and task automation

    work page 2026

  2. [2]

    Anthropic. 2024. Introducing the Model Context Protocol. https://www.anthropic. com/news/model-context-protocol. Accessed: 2026-02-03

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    2026.Shortcuts — Automate Your Tasks

    Apple. 2026.Shortcuts — Automate Your Tasks. https://apps.apple.com/us/app/ shortcuts/id915249334 Apple’s official Shortcuts app for creating personal and automated workflows on iOS devices

    work page 2026

  4. [4]

    2016.FitBit Fitness Tracker Data

    arashnic. 2016.FitBit Fitness Tracker Data. https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/ arashnic/fitbit Accessed: 2026-02-03

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    Victor Barres, Honghua Dong, Soham Ray, Xujie Si, and Karthik Narasimhan. 2025. 𝜏 2-Bench: Evaluating Conversational Agents in a Dual-Control Environment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.07982(2025)

    arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    2025.Doubao: Mobile AI Assistant

    ByteDance. 2025.Doubao: Mobile AI Assistant. https://www.doubao.com/ A general-purpose mobile AI assistant supporting conversational interaction, con- tent creation, and system-level task assistance in everyday user scenarios

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    Amartya Chakraborty, Paresh Dashore, Nadia Bathaee, Anmol Jain, Anirban Das, Shi-Xiong Zhang, Sambit Sahu, Milind Naphade, and Genta Indra Winata. 2025. T1: A Tool-Oriented Conversational Dataset for Multi-Turn Agentic Planning. InThe Thirty-ninth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems Datasets and Benchmarks Track

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    Chen Chen, Xinlong Hao, Weiwen Liu, Xu Huang, Xingshan Zeng, Shuai Yu, Dexun Li, Yuefeng Huang, Xiangcheng Liu, Wang Xinzhi, and Wu Liu. 2025. ACEBench: A Comprehensive Evaluation of LLM Tool Usage. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2025

    work page 2025

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Fitbit, Inc. 2026. Fitbit Developer: API Documentation and Tools. https://www. fitbit.com/dev. https://www.fitbit.com/dev Accessed: 2026-02-08

    2026

  2. [10]

    Xuanqi Gao, Siyi Xie, Juan Zhai, Shiqing Ma, and Chao Shen. 2025. Mcp-radar: A multi-dimensional benchmark for evaluating tool use capabilities in large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.16700(2025)

    2025

  3. [11]

    2026.Google Assistant with Gemini

    Google. 2026.Google Assistant with Gemini. https://gemini.google/assistant/ A large language model-powered personal assistant designed for everyday infor- mation access, planning, and task execution across devices

    2026

  4. [12]

    2025.Gemini 2.5 Pro

    Google DeepMind. 2025.Gemini 2.5 Pro. https://modelcards.withgoogle.com/ assets/documents/gemini-2.5-pro.pdf Accessed: 2026-02-05

    2025

  5. [13]

    2025.Gemini 3 Flash

    Google DeepMind. 2025.Gemini 3 Flash. https://storage.googleapis.com/ deepmind-media/Model-Cards/Gemini-3-Flash-Model-Card.pdf Accessed: 2026- 02-05

    2025

  6. [14]

    2025.Gemini 3 Pro

    Google DeepMind. 2025.Gemini 3 Pro. https://storage.googleapis.com/deepmind- media/Model-Cards/Gemini-3-Pro-Model-Card.pdf Accessed: 2026-02-05

    2025

  7. [15]

    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. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics...

    2024

  8. [16]

    Junlong Li, Wenshuo Zhao, Jian Zhao, Weihao Zeng, Haoze Wu, Xiaochen Wang, Rui Ge, Yuxuan Cao, Yuzhen Huang, Wei Liu, et al. 2025. The Tool Decathlon: Benchmarking Language Agents for Diverse, Realistic, and Long-Horizon Task Execution.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.25726(2025)

    2025

  9. [17]

    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. 3102–3116

    2023

  10. [18]

    Aixin Liu, Aoxue Mei, Bangcai Lin, Bing Xue, Bingxuan Wang, Bingzheng Xu, Bochao Wu, Bowei Zhang, Chaofan Lin, Chen Dong, et al . 2025. Deepseek- v3. 2: Pushing the frontier of open large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.02556(2025)

    2025 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Weiwen Liu, Xu Huang, Xingshan Zeng, xinlong hao, Shuai Yu, Dexun Li, Shuai Wang, Weinan Gan, Zhengying Liu, Yuanqing Yu, Zezhong WANG, Yuxian Wang, Wu Ning, Yutai Hou, Bin Wang, Chuhan Wu, Wang Xinzhi, Yong Liu, Yasheng Wang, Duyu Tang, Dandan Tu, Lifeng Shang, Xin Jiang, Rui...

    2025

  12. [20]

    Zuxin Liu, Thai Hoang, Jianguo Zhang, Ming Zhu, Tian Lan, Juntao Tan, Weiran Yao, Zhiwei Liu, Yihao Feng, Rithesh RN, et al. 2024. Apigen: Automated pipeline for generating verifiable and diverse function-calling datasets.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems37 (20...

    2024

  13. [21]

    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 C...

    2025

  14. [22]

    Guozhao Mo, Wenliang Zhong, Jiawei Chen, Xuanang Chen, Yaojie Lu, Hongyu Lin, Ben He, Xianpei Han, and Le Sun. 2025. Livemcpbench: Can agents navigate an ocean of mcp tools?arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.01780(2025)

    2025

  15. [23]

    2025.GPT-4.1 mini Model (OpenAI API Documentation)

    OpenAI. 2025.GPT-4.1 mini Model (OpenAI API Documentation). https://platform. openai.com/docs/models/gpt-4.1-mini Accessed: 2026-02-05

    2025

  16. [24]

    2025.GPT-5

    OpenAI. 2025.GPT-5. https://platform.openai.com/docs/models/gpt-5 Accessed: 2026-02-05

    2025

  17. [25]

    2025.GPT-5 mini

    OpenAI. 2025.GPT-5 mini. https://platform.openai.com/docs/models/gpt-5-mini Accessed: 2026-02-05

    2025

  18. [26]

    2025.Introducing GPT-4.1 in the API

    OpenAI. 2025.Introducing GPT-4.1 in the API. https://platform.openai.com/docs/ models/gpt-4.1 Accessed: 2026-02-05

    2025

  19. [27]

    Gonzalez

    Shishir G Patil, Huanzhi Mao, Fanjia Yan, Charlie Cheng-Jie Ji, Vishnu Suresh, Ion Stoica, and Joseph E. Gonzalez. 2025. The Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL): From Tool Use to Agentic Evaluation of Large Language Models. In Proceedings of the 42nd International Con...

    2025

  20. [28]

    Shishir G Patil, Tianjun Zhang, Xin Wang, and Joseph E Gonzalez. 2024. Go- rilla: Large language model connected with massive apis.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems37 (2024), 126544–126565

    2024

  21. [29]

    Akshara Prabhakar, Zuxin Liu, Ming Zhu, Jianguo Zhang, Tulika Manoj Awal- gaonkar, Shiyu Wang, Zhiwei Liu, Haolin Chen, Thai Quoc Hoang, Juan Carlos Niebles, Shelby Heinecke, Weiran Yao, Huan Wang, Silvio Savarese, and Caiming Xiong. 2025. APIGen-MT: Agentic Pipeline for Multi...

    2025

  22. [30]

    Cheng Qian, Zuxin Liu, Akshara Prabhakar, Zhiwei Liu, Jianguo Zhang, Haolin Chen, Heng Ji, Weiran Yao, Shelby Heinecke, Silvio Savarese, et al. 2025. User- bench: An interactive gym environment for user-centric agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.22034(2025)

    2025 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Yujia Qin, Shihao Liang, Yining Ye, Kunlun Zhu, Lan Yan, Yaxi Lu, Yankai Lin, Xin Cong, Xiangru Tang, Bill Qian, Sihan Zhao, Lauren Hong, Runchu Tian, Ruobing Xie, Jie Zhou, Mark Gerstein, dahai li, Zhiyuan Liu, and Maosong Sun

  24. [32]

    2026.RapidAPI Hub

    RapidAPI. 2026.RapidAPI Hub. https://rapidapi.com/hub A platform for finding, connecting to, and managing APIs through a centralized hub

    2026

  25. [33]

    Haiyang SHEN, Yue Li, Desong Meng, Dongqi Cai, Sheng Qi, Li Zhang, Mengwei Xu, and Yun Ma. 2025. ShortcutsBench: A Large-Scale Real-world Benchmark for API-based Agents. InThe Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations

    2025

  26. [34]

    Spike Technologies, Inc. 2026. Spike API Overview — API Documentation. https: //docs.spikeapi.com/overview. https://docs.spikeapi.com/overview Accessed: 2026-02-08

    2026

  27. [35]

    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.arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.05301(2023)

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Eduardo Treviño, Hugo Contant, James Ngai, Graham Neubig, and Zora Zhiruo Wang. 2025. Benchmarking Failures in Tool-Augmented Language Models. In Proceedings of the 2025 Conference of the Nations of the Americas Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human L...

    2025

  29. [37]

    Validic, Inc. 2026. Validic Inform Developer Documentation. https://helpdocs. validic.com/. https://helpdocs.validic.com/ Accessed: 2026-02-08

    2026

  30. [38]

    Ruixuan Xiao, Wentao Ma, Ke Wang, Yuchuan Wu, Junbo Zhao, Haobo Wang, Fei Huang, and Yongbin Li. 2024. FlowBench: Revisiting and Benchmarking Workflow-Guided Planning for LLM-based Agents. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2024

    2024

  31. [39]

    Qiantong Xu, Fenglu Hong, Bo Li, Changran Hu, Zhengyu Chen, and Jian Zhang

  32. [40]

    Narasimhan

    Shunyu Yao, Noah Shinn, Pedram Razavi, and Karthik R. Narasimhan. 2025. 𝜏- Bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domains. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)

    2025

  33. [41]

    Fan Yin, Zifeng Wang, I-Hung Hsu, Jun Yan, Ke Jiang, Yanfei Chen, Jindong Gu, Long Le, Kai-Wei Chang, Chen-Yu Lee, et al. 2025. Magnet: Multi-turn tool-use data synthesis and distillation via graph translation. InProceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Co...

    2025

  34. [42]

    Ming Yin, Dinghan Shen, Silei Xu, Jianbing Han, Sixun Dong, Mian Zhang, Yebowen Hu, Shujian Liu, Simin Ma, Song Wang, et al. 2025. Livemcp-101: Stress testing and diagnosing mcp-enabled agents on challenging queries.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.15760(2025)

    2025 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Xingshan Zeng, Weiwen Liu, Xu Huang, Zezhong Wang, Lingzhi Wang, Liangyou Li, Yasheng Wang, Lifeng Shang, Xin Jiang, Ruiming Tang, et al. 2025. ToolACE-R: Tool Learning with Adaptive Self-Refinement.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.01400 (2025)

    2025

  36. [44]

    Xingshan Zeng, Weiwen Liu, Lingzhi Wang, Liangyou Li, Fei Mi, Yasheng Wang, Lifeng Shang, Xin Jiang, and Qun Liu. 2025. Toolace-mt: Non-autoregressive generation for agentic multi-turn interaction.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.12685 (2025). PAUSE: A User-Centric Benchmark for Pers...

    2025

  37. [2023]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.16504(2023)

    On the tool manipulation capability of open-source large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.16504(2023)

    2023 arXiv

  38. [2024]

    InThe Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations

    ToolLLM: Facilitating Large Language Models to Master 16000+ Real-world APIs. InThe Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.