Large language models as tool makers

May combine two claims.

The Python function tools are a more generic form of Chain-of-Thought, enhancing the overall utility and flexibility of the LLMs, as they can be used to solve questions that involve algorithmic reasoning ability.

“Furthermore, the Python function tools are a more generic form of Chain-of-Thought, enhancing the overall utility and flexibility of the LLMs, as they can be used to solve questions that involve algorithmic reasoning ability (Veličković and Blundell, 2021).”

• cites Veličković and Blundell, 2021 sourceCould not verify

  The Main text and the blueprint of neural algorithmic reasoning discuss neural networks learning to execute algorithms, not Python function tools or LLMs. Searches for Chain-of-Thought, Python function tools, and LLM tool use found no passage addressing the claimed relationship or improvement in utility and flexibility. (LLM, conf=0.76)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Recent research has unveiled the potential of augmenting LLMs with external tools, significantly enhancing their problem-solving capacities and efficiencies.

“Moreover, analogous to the evolution of human intelligence, recent research has unveiled the potential of augmenting LLMs with external tools, thereby significantly enhancing their problem-solving capacities and efficiencies (Yao et al., 2023;Liu et al., 2023;Parisi et al., 2022;Schick et al., 2023).”

• cites Yao et al., 2023Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Liu et al., 2023Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Parisi et al., 2022 sourceSupported

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

CoT prompting has been proposed to bolster LLM reasoning capabilities, demonstrating improved performance across various reasoning and NLP tasks.

“For instance, CoT prompting (Wei et al., 2022;Wang et al., 2022) has been proposed to bolster LLM reasoning capabilities, demonstrating improved performance across various reasoning and natural language processing tasks.”

• cites Wei et al., 2022 sourcePartly supported

  The Introduction (p. 2) reports that chain-of-thought prompting outperforms standard prompting on arithmetic, commonsense, and symbolic reasoning benchmarks. The paper supports improved reasoning performance, but does not demonstrate improvements across NLP tasks more generally; Appendix A.3 (p. 18) also says benefits vary by task. (LLM, conf=0.83)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
• cites Wang et al., 2022 sourcePartly supported

  The Introduction (p. 1) reports that Wei et al. proposed CoT prompting to address limitations in language-model reasoning and that it improved performance on multi-step reasoning tasks. But §3.3 (p. 6) says CoT prompting hurt performance on some common NLP tasks; it was Wang et al.’s self-consistency method that boosted performance there. The claim’s broader attribution of improved NLP-task performance to CoT prompting is therefore not supported. (LLM, conf=0.85)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The ability of LLMs to self-debug has been demonstrated effectively in recent research.

“The ability of LLMs to self-debug has been demonstrated effectively in recent research (Madaan et al., 2023;Chen et al., 2023c;Lu et al., 2023;Kim et al., 2023).”

• cites Madaan et al., 2023 sourcePartly supported

  The Abstract and Refine Feedback section report that LLMs use their own feedback to improve outputs, including code generation. That supports self-correction broadly, but the code-readability section explicitly distinguishes its task from correctness, and the cited passages do not demonstrate effective self-debugging of code errors specifically. (LLM, conf=0.83)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
• cites Chen et al., 2023c sourceSupported
• cites Lu et al., 2023Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

LATM can achieve performance on par with more resource-intensive models while being more cost-effective.

“The results show that LATM can achieve performance on par with more resource-intensive models while being more cost-effective.”

May combine two claims.

With the help of the tool, a lightweight model like GPT-3.5 Turbo can achieve performance on par with GPT-4, significantly outperforming CoT prompting.

“The results demonstrate that with the help of the tool, a lightweight model like GPT-3.5 Turbo can achieve performance on par with GPT-4, significantly outperforming CoT prompting.”

May combine two claims.

With GPT-4 as tool maker and GPT-3.5 as tool user, LATM demonstrates performance equivalent to using GPT-4 for both roles, but with significantly reduced inference cost.

“With GPT-4 as the tool maker and GPT-3.5 as the tool user, LATM demonstrates performance equivalent to using GPT-4 for both roles, but with a significantly reduced inference cost.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

When converting the question into a function call, GPT-4 occasionally superfluously closes some brackets within the argument instead of leaving the argument unchanged and letting the function solve it, which leads to incorrect function output.

“Upon investigating the failure cases, we find that when converting the question into a function call, GPT-4 occasionally superfluously closes some brackets within the argument instead of leaving the argument unchanged and letting the function solve it, which leads to incorrect function output.”

May combine two claims.

LATM performs comparably to resource-intensive models while being more cost-effective.

“demonstrating that our framework performs comparably to resource-intensive models while being more cost-effective.”

• Also stated in: § 6 CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK · plain

  “This division of labor allows us to harness the capabilities of advanced LLMs while significantly reducing computational costs.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The benchmark tasks used are representative of diverse complex tasks.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The dispatcher maintains a repository of existing tools crafted by the tool maker in the format of function APIs.

“The dispatcher maintains a repository of existing tools crafted by the tool maker in the format of function APIs.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: In real-world scenarios, tasks often arrive in a sequential stream.

May combine two claims.

Within the LATM pipeline, the verification stage provides examples that demonstrate how to convert natural language questions into function calls and verifies the tool's reliability, enabling the entire process to be fully automated.

“This stage fulfills two key roles: 1) it provides examples that demonstrate how to convert natural language questions into function calls, and 2) it verifies the tool's reliability, enabling the entire process to be fully automated.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

The tool-using process is comparatively simpler and can be assigned to a lightweight and cost-effective model (e.g., GPT-3.5 Turbo).

“On the other hand, the tool-using process, which is comparatively simpler, can be assigned to a lightweight and cost-effective model (e.g., GPT-3.5 Turbo).”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

If no suitable tool is available, the dispatcher identifies this as a novel task, either solving it with a powerful model or, if necessary, invoking a human labeler.

“However, if no suitable tool is available, the dispatcher identifies this as a novel task, either solving it with a powerful model or, if necessary, invoking a human labeler.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: In real-world scenarios, tasks often arrive in a sequential stream.

May combine two claims.

LATM overcomes the hurdles of lightweight models struggling with complex tasks and powerful models having high inference costs by employing a powerful model as tool maker and passing it to a cost-effective model as tool user for subsequent usage.

“LATM overcomes these hurdles by employing a powerful yet expensive model as the tool maker, and passing it to a cost-effective model as the tool user, for subsequent usage.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

The tool-making process requires a high degree of capability and can be assigned to a powerful albeit resource-intensive model (e.g., GPT-4).

“Specifically, the tool-making process, which requires a high degree of capability, can be assigned to a powerful albeit resource-intensive model (e.g., GPT-4).”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Tool Proposing follows the programming by example (PbE) paradigm where several concrete demonstrations are provided and the model is required to write programs that produce the demonstrated behaviors.

“This process follows the”

• cites Halbert, 1984Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

The separation of tool maker and tool user enables the use of a lightweight model for most inferences, enhancing efficiency and cost-effectiveness in LATM.

“Furthermore, the separation of the tool maker and tool user enables the use of a lightweight model for most inferences, thus enhancing efficiency and cost-effectiveness in LATM.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Traditional cache systems such as GPTCache store responses generated by LLMs and reuse them for textually similar requests.

“Traditional cache systems, such as GPTCache (Zilliz, 2023), store the responses generated by the LLMs and reuse them for textually similar requests.”

• cites Zilliz, 2023Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

In LATM, the tool-making phase uses an LLM as tool maker to craft tools for a set of tasks, implemented as Python utility functions.

“Our approach consists of two phases: 1) tool making: an LLM acts as the tool maker that crafts tools for a set of tasks, where a tool is implemented as a Python utility function.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

In LATM, the tool-using phase uses another LLM as tool user to apply the tool built by the tool maker for problem-solving.

“2) tool using: another LLM acts as the tool user, which applies the tool built by the tool maker for problem-solving.”

May combine two claims.

This mechanism allows functionally similar tasks to reuse tools, expanding the coverage of the classic cache mechanism and reducing the overall serving cost.

“This mechanism allows for the functionally similar tasks to reuse these tools, expanding the coverage of the classic cache mechanism and reducing the overall serving cost.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: In real-world scenarios, tasks often arrive in a sequential stream.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

If a compatible tool is present in the cache, the dispatcher assigns the instance and corresponding tool to the tool user for resolution.

“If such a tool is present, the dispatcher assigns the instance and corresponding tool to the tool user for resolution.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: In real-world scenarios, tasks often arrive in a sequential stream.

May combine two claims.

Rather than merely cascading LLMs, LATM identifies task categories that can be better addressed using new tools generated by a larger model and assigns each individual inference within that task category to a smaller model.

“Our motivation aligns with these findings; however, rather than merely cascading LLMs, we identify task categories that can be better addressed using new tools generated by a larger model and assign each individual inference within that task category to a smaller model.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

Given the simplicity of the dispatching task, a lightweight model equipped with appropriate prompts can efficiently serve as the dispatcher, adding only a marginal cost to the entire pipeline.

“Given the simplicity of the dispatching task, a lightweight model equipped with appropriate prompts (See Appendix C) can efficiently serve as the dispatcher, adding only a marginal cost to the entire pipeline.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: In real-world scenarios, tasks often arrive in a sequential stream.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

LATM is a closed-loop framework in which LLMs create their own reusable tools for problem-solving.

“In our work, we further advance this concept by introducing a closedloop framework, referred to as LLMs As Tool Makers (LATM), where LLMs create their own reusable tools for problem-solving.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Chen et al. (2023b) demonstrated that identifying optimal LLM combinations can help reduce costs while improving accuracy.

“Also, Chen et al. (2023b) demonstrated that identifying optimal LLM combinations can help reduce costs while improving accuracy.”

• cites Chen et al. (2023b)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

The tool-making stage, including tool proposing, verification, and wrapping, only needs to be performed once for each type of task, and the resulting tools can be reused for all instances of that task.

“The tool-making stage, including tool proposing, verification, and wrapping, only needs to be performed once for each type of task.The resulting tools can then be reused for all instances of that task.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

The tool user can be either the same or a different LLM from the tool maker.

“The tool user can be either the same or a different LLM from the tool maker.”

May combine two claims.

In contrast to methods like Chameleon that use Python executors to solve arithmetic sub-steps, LATM uses Python executors to create reusable tools for addressing other task instances.

“In contrast, we use Python executors to create reusable tools for addressing other task instances.”

May combine two claims.

As the tool-making process needs to be executed only once for a given functionality, the resulting tools can be reused across different task instances.

“As the tool-making process needs to be executed only once for a given functionality, the resulting tools can be reused across different task instances.”

• Also stated in: § 5.2 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE TOOL-MAKING STAGE · plain

  “This step is performed only once for each task, and the overhead is amortized across all instances of that task.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

Evaluation and validation of tools created by the tool maker in a real-world setting is a challenge that needs to be addressed.

“Additionally, the evaluation and validation of the tools created by the tool maker in a real-world setting is a challenge that needs to be addressed.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

The real-world performance and safety of the system may vary based on task complexity and nature.

“It is crucial to note that the real-world performance and safety of the system may vary based on the complexity and nature of the tasks it is applied to.”

May combine two claims.

The dispatcher can effectively recognize existing tools and accurately request tool-making for unseen tasks, all while maintaining high performance.

“The above results illustrate that the dispatcher can effectively recognize existing tools and accurately request tool-making for unseen tasks, all while maintaining high performance.”

May combine two claims.

Since we use the entire history in each step of tool-making to enhance reliability, this introduces a longer context.

“Since we use the entire history in each step of tool-making to enhance the reliability of the tool-making stage, this also introduces a longer context.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Another limitation that may contribute to the tool maker's failure is context length constraints.

“Another limitation that may contribute to the tool maker's failure is the context length constraints.”

May combine two claims.

The major failure reason is that the tool is not general enough and may only work on the training samples.

“And the major failure reason is that the tool is not general enough and may only work on the training samples.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

In this case GPT-4 with 8192 context length is preferable.

“In this case GPT-4 with 8192 context length is preferable.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The performance comparison of tool user models used the same tool generated by GPT-4.

“all using the same tool generated by GPT-4.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The study did not address control and safety issues in depth.

“In this study, we have not addressed these control and safety issues in depth”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The LATM framework is still in its early stages of development.

“Our proposed framework, LLM As Tool Maker, while effective in the tested scenarios, is still in its early stages of development.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

Instruction tuning impairs the in-context learning ability essential for the tool-using stage, causing post-instruction-tuning models to underperform.

“We postulate that this is due to the instruction tuning impairing the in-context learning ability, which is essential for the tool-using stage.”

• Also stated in: § 5.5 ABLATION STUDY · hedged

  “We hypothesize that the instruction tuning phase in these models may adversely impact the in-context learning ability, which is crucial for the tool-using stage.”