Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

On Evaluating the Integration of Reasoning and Action in LLM Agents with Database Question Answering

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 2311.09721 v1 pith:GI4U7WOG submitted 2023-11-16 cs.CL

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

This study introduces a new long-form database question answering dataset designed to evaluate how Large Language Models (LLMs) interact with a SQL interpreter. The task necessitates LLMs to strategically generate multiple SQL queries to retrieve sufficient data from a database, to reason with the acquired context, and to synthesize them into a comprehensive analytical narrative. Our findings highlight that this task poses great challenges even for the state-of-the-art GPT-4 model. We propose and evaluate two interaction strategies, and provide a fine-grained analysis of the individual stages within the interaction. A key discovery is the identification of two primary bottlenecks hindering effective interaction: the capacity for planning and the ability to generate multiple SQL queries. To address the challenge of accurately assessing answer quality, we introduce a multi-agent evaluation framework that simulates the academic peer-review process, enhancing the precision and reliability of our evaluations. This framework allows for a more nuanced understanding of the strengths and limitations of current LLMs in complex retrieval and reasoning tasks.

Discussion (0). Sign in 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. Precise but Uncoupled: Reviewer Precision Does Not Guarantee Critique Uptake in Multi-Agent Math Reasoning

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Reviewer precision and critique uptake come apart: a more precise specialized reviewer can be less effective than a less precise shared-state discussion because correct critiques often do not change the next candidate.

  2. VulRTex: A Reasoning-Guided Approach to Identify Vulnerabilities from Rich-Text Issue Report

    cs.SE 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A retrieval-augmented LLM approach that identifies vulnerability-related issue reports and CWE types from screenshots and code snippets, improving F1 by 11 points and AUPRC by 20 points over baselines.

Pith tools