Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

WTU-EVAL: A Whether-or-Not Tool Usage Evaluation Benchmark for 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 2407.12823 v1 pith:II27FKLZ submitted 2024-07-02 cs.CL cs.AI

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

Although Large Language Models (LLMs) excel in NLP tasks, they still need external tools to extend their ability. Current research on tool learning with LLMs often assumes mandatory tool use, which does not always align with real-world situations, where the necessity for tools is uncertain, and incorrect or unnecessary use of tools can damage the general abilities of LLMs. Therefore, we propose to explore whether LLMs can discern their ability boundaries and use tools flexibly. We then introduce the Whether-or-not tool usage Evaluation benchmark (WTU-Eval) to assess LLMs with eleven datasets, where six of them are tool-usage datasets, and five are general datasets. LLMs are prompted to use tools according to their needs. The results of eight LLMs on WTU-Eval reveal that LLMs frequently struggle to determine tool use in general datasets, and LLMs' performance in tool-usage datasets improves when their ability is similar to ChatGPT. In both datasets, incorrect tool usage significantly impairs LLMs' performance. To mitigate this, we also develop the finetuning dataset to enhance tool decision-making. Fine-tuning Llama2-7B results in a 14\% average performance improvement and a 16.8\% decrease in incorrect tool usage. We will release the WTU-Eval benchmark.

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. AGAPI-Agents: An Open-Access Agentic AI Platform for Accelerated Materials Design on AtomGPT.org

    cs.AI 2025-12 reject novelty 6.0 of 10

    An open-source agentic materials-design platform shows tool access can help or hurt accuracy depending on the property, but its headline memorization-resistant test results are not presented.

  2. Butterfly Effects in Toolchains: A Comprehensive Analysis of Failed Parameter Filling in LLM Tool-Agent Systems

    cs.SE 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    LLM tool agents fail at parameter filling in five recurring ways; perturbing tool documents and user queries drives most failures, and invented parameter names are tied to the model rather than the input.

Pith tools