洞察 - Natural Language Processing - # Large Language Model Evaluation

GTA: A Benchmark for Evaluating Tool-Use Capabilities of Large Language Models in Real-World Scenarios

Q: Could the performance gap between API-based and open-source LLMs on GTA be attributed to differences in training data or model architectures, and how can this gap be bridged?

The performance gap between API-based and open-source LLMs on GTA can be attributed to a combination of factors: Training Data: Scale and Diversity: API-based models like GPT-4 are trained on vastly larger and more diverse datasets, potentially including code, structured data, and real-world interactions, which are crucial for tool-use. Instruction Following: API-based models might be trained with a stronger emphasis on instruction following and alignment with human intentions, which is essential for accurately understanding and executing tool-related instructions. Proprietary Data: API providers have access to massive proprietary datasets that are not publicly available, giving their models an advantage. Model Architectures: Model Size: Larger models generally exhibit better performance on complex tasks like tool-use. API-based models tend to be significantly larger than their open-source counterparts. Architectural Differences: Subtle differences in model architectures, attention mechanisms, or training objectives could contribute to the performance gap. Bridging the Gap: Scaling Open-Source Models: Increasing the size and training data diversity of open-source models is crucial. Instruction Tuning: Fine-tuning open-source models on large datasets of instructions and code, similar to the approach used for Agent-Flan, can improve their tool-use capabilities. Open-Sourcing Data and Techniques: Sharing datasets and techniques used to train API-based models can help level the playing field. Collaborative Research: Joint efforts between industry and academia to develop and benchmark open-source tool-augmented LLMs are essential.

核心概念

Existing large language models (LLMs) struggle to effectively utilize tools in complex, real-world scenarios, highlighting the need for more robust benchmarks and evaluation metrics for tool-augmented LLMs.

摘要

Bibliographic Information: Wang, J., Ma, Z., Li, Y., Zhang, S., Chen, C., Chen, K., & Le, X. (2024). GTA: A Benchmark for General Tool Agents. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 38.
Research Objective: This paper introduces GTA, a novel benchmark designed to evaluate the tool-use capabilities of large language models (LLMs) in real-world scenarios, addressing the limitations of existing benchmarks that rely on artificial or overly simplistic tasks.
Methodology: The researchers developed GTA with a focus on three key aspects: 1) Real user queries: Human-designed queries reflecting real-world tasks with implicit tool-use requirements, demanding reasoning and planning from LLMs. 2) Real deployed tools: An evaluation platform equipped with executable tools across perception, operation, logic, and creativity categories, enabling assessment of actual task execution. 3) Real multimodal inputs: Authentic image files, such as spatial scenes and web page screenshots, providing context for the queries and aligning with real-world scenarios. The benchmark comprises 229 real-world tasks with corresponding executable tool chains, allowing for fine-grained evaluation of LLM performance.
Key Findings: Evaluation of 16 mainstream LLMs, including GPT-4 and open-source models, revealed that existing LLMs struggle with real-world tool-use tasks. GPT-4 achieved an accuracy of less than 50%, while most other models scored below 25%. The study identified argument prediction as a significant bottleneck, highlighting the difficulty LLMs face in correctly identifying and formatting arguments for tool invocation.
Main Conclusions: GTA provides a challenging benchmark for evaluating and advancing the tool-use capabilities of LLMs in real-world scenarios. The authors emphasize the need for future research to focus on improving argument prediction and enhancing the reasoning and planning abilities of LLMs for effective tool integration.
Significance: This research significantly contributes to the field of LLM evaluation by introducing a more realistic and challenging benchmark that better reflects real-world tool-use scenarios. The findings highlight current limitations and provide valuable insights for guiding future research on tool-augmented LLMs.
Limitations and Future Research: The benchmark currently lacks language diversity, focusing solely on English queries. Future work could expand GTA to include multilingual queries and explore methods for reducing the reliance on human-annotated data.

自定义摘要

使用 AI 改写

生成参考文献

翻译原文

翻译成其他语言

生成思维导图

从原文生成

访问来源

arxiv.org

统计

GPT-4 completed less than 50% of the tasks.
Most LLMs achieved below 25% accuracy on the GTA benchmark.
The benchmark consists of 229 real-world tasks.
The evaluation included 16 different large language models.
The dataset includes 252 images and utilizes 14 distinct tools.

引用

"Current evaluations often use AI-generated queries, single-step tasks, dummy tools, and text-only interactions, failing to effectively reveal the agents’ real-world problem-solving abilities."
"Our findings show that real-world user queries are challenging for existing LLMs, with GPT-4 completing less than 50% of the tasks and most LLMs achieving below 25%."

从中提取的关键见解

GTA: A Benchmark for General Tool Agents

by Jize Wang, Z... 在 arxiv.org 11-25-2024

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2407.08713.pdf

GTA: A Benchmark for General Tool Agents

更深入的查询

How can the principles behind GTA be applied to evaluate tool-use in LLMs for other domains, such as scientific research or software development?

The principles of real user queries, real deployed tools, and real multimodal inputs used in GTA provide a robust framework for evaluating tool-use in LLMs across various domains. Here's how these principles can be applied to scientific research and software development:
Scientific Research:

Real User Queries:  Instead of using AI-generated queries, tasks can be designed based on real research questions scientists grapple with. For example:

"Analyze the protein structure from this Cryo-EM data and compare it to known structures in the Protein Data Bank."
"Given this astronomical dataset, identify potential exoplanet candidates and model their properties."


Real Deployed Tools: Integrate LLMs with actual scientific software and databases. This could include:

Data analysis tools like Python libraries (NumPy, SciPy, Pandas)
Simulation software specific to the research area (e.g., molecular dynamics, climate modeling)
Access to research databases (e.g., PubMed, GenBank, arXiv)


Real Multimodal Inputs:  Scientific research often involves diverse data types.  Evaluation should include:

Research papers (PDFs)
Experimental data (spreadsheets, images, time-series data)
Code snippets
Molecular structures (3D models)
Software Development:

Real User Queries:  Focus on tasks faced by software developers during the development lifecycle:

"Given this bug report and codebase, identify the faulty code segment and suggest a fix."
"Generate unit tests for this function, ensuring comprehensive code coverage."
"Design a REST API endpoint for this functionality, adhering to our API documentation standards."


Real Deployed Tools: Integrate LLMs with software development tools:

Code editors (VS Code, Atom) with plugins for code completion, debugging
Version control systems (Git)
Testing frameworks (JUnit, pytest)
CI/CD pipelines


Real Multimodal Inputs:

Code repositories
Issue trackers and bug reports
Design documents and specifications
User interface mockups
Key Considerations for Adaptation:

Domain-Specific Tools: The choice of tools will be highly specific to the domain.
Evaluation Metrics:  Metrics need to be tailored to the domain's success criteria. For example, in software development, code quality, efficiency, and adherence to best practices are crucial.
Data Availability and Privacy: Access to real-world data in research and development might be restricted due to privacy or confidentiality concerns. Synthetic data generation or differential privacy techniques could be explored.

Could the performance gap between API-based and open-source LLMs on GTA be attributed to differences in training data or model architectures, and how can this gap be bridged?

The performance gap between API-based and open-source LLMs on GTA can be attributed to a combination of factors:
Training Data:

Scale and Diversity: API-based models like GPT-4 are trained on vastly larger and more diverse datasets, potentially including code, structured data, and real-world interactions, which are crucial for tool-use.
Instruction Following: API-based models might be trained with a stronger emphasis on instruction following and alignment with human intentions, which is essential for accurately understanding and executing tool-related instructions.
Proprietary Data: API providers have access to massive proprietary datasets that are not publicly available, giving their models an advantage.
Model Architectures:

Model Size: Larger models generally exhibit better performance on complex tasks like tool-use. API-based models tend to be significantly larger than their open-source counterparts.
Architectural Differences: Subtle differences in model architectures, attention mechanisms, or training objectives could contribute to the performance gap.
Bridging the Gap:

Scaling Open-Source Models: Increasing the size and training data diversity of open-source models is crucial.
Instruction Tuning: Fine-tuning open-source models on large datasets of instructions and code, similar to the approach used for Agent-Flan, can improve their tool-use capabilities.
Open-Sourcing Data and Techniques: Sharing datasets and techniques used to train API-based models can help level the playing field.
Collaborative Research:  Joint efforts between industry and academia to develop and benchmark open-source tool-augmented LLMs are essential.

What are the ethical implications of developing increasingly sophisticated tool-augmented LLMs, and how can we ensure responsible development and deployment of such systems?

Developing increasingly sophisticated tool-augmented LLMs raises significant ethical concerns:

Bias and Discrimination: If trained on biased data, these systems can perpetuate and amplify existing societal biases, leading to unfair or discriminatory outcomes in domains like hiring, loan applications, or criminal justice.
Privacy Violations: LLMs with access to personal data and tools could be used for mass surveillance or unauthorized data collection, infringing on individual privacy.
Job Displacement: Automation through tool-augmented LLMs could lead to job displacement in various sectors, requiring proactive measures for workforce retraining and adaptation.
Misinformation and Manipulation:  These systems could be exploited to generate and spread misinformation at scale, potentially influencing public opinion or manipulating individuals.
Lack of Transparency and Accountability: The decision-making processes of complex LLMs can be opaque, making it difficult to understand, audit, or attribute responsibility for their actions.
Ensuring Responsible Development and Deployment:

Ethical Frameworks and Guidelines: Develop clear ethical guidelines and regulations for the development and deployment of tool-augmented LLMs, addressing issues of bias, privacy, transparency, and accountability.
Diverse and Representative Data:  Ensure training data is diverse, representative, and free from harmful biases to mitigate the risk of discriminatory outcomes.
Robust Testing and Evaluation:  Rigorously test and evaluate these systems for potential biases, safety risks, and unintended consequences before deployment.
Explainability and Interpretability:  Develop techniques to make the decision-making processes of LLMs more transparent and interpretable, enabling better understanding and accountability.
Human Oversight and Control:  Maintain human oversight and control over critical decisions and actions taken by tool-augmented LLMs, especially in high-stakes domains.
Public Education and Engagement:  Foster public awareness and understanding of the capabilities, limitations, and potential risks of these systems to promote informed decision-making and responsible use.
Addressing these ethical implications proactively is crucial to ensure that the development and deployment of increasingly sophisticated tool-augmented LLMs benefit society while mitigating potential harms.