Organizations: University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
Abstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in task-oriented dialogue systems that support multi-step decision-making in high-stakes domains such as education, healthcare, and finance. However, existing benchmarks typically assume perfectly accurate tool outputs, overlooking the reality that deployed systems must operate with noisy tools and human decision-makers whose trust in the agent is itself uncertain. Such conditions are common in practice, for example, a clinician using a diagnostic prediction tool or an advisor relying on a model that forecasts student outcomes from historical records. We introduce PREDACTBENCH, a benchmark for evaluating dialogue agents paired with statistically imperfect tools, using education as a measurable testbed where ground truth outcomes and clear intervention decisions are available. First, we build a benchmark for AI-assisted human decision-making, where the AI uses noisy predictors to help guide a user. Second, we introduce episode-level Relative AI-Reliance (RAIR) and Relative self-reliance (RSR) metrics, extending prior trust calibration framework to multi-turn dialogue. Third, we evaluate 13 state-of-the-art closed and open source LLMs on two educational datasets, OULAD (real assessment trajectories from the UK Open University) and PREDACT-CS (60 courses with real final grade outcomes and synthetically generated weekly score trajectories), alongside a human study with instructors and teaching assistants. We find that when tools are noisy, SOTA models are supposed to provide visibility to teachers so that they do not over-rely on wrong suggestions or hallucinations, but current models fail to do that. We offer PREDACTBENCH to help build better LLMs as AI decision support systems to help teachers.
Tool-use LLMs are increasingly asked to act on users' behalf, but existing benchmarks usually focus on profile recall, style imitation, generic tool use, or response-level personalization. We introduce UserToolBench , a benchmark for personalized decision making in tool-use LLMs. UserToolBench tests whether a model can infer latent user preferences from interaction history, recognize when clarification is needed, and produce user-aligned tool-call trajectories under incomplete information. The benchmark is built from privacy-sanitized real interaction traces and combines structured persona profiles, public API-style tool ecosystems, and long-horizon multi-turn trajectories. It includes 10 user profiles, 36 tool sets, 1,065 turns, 170 unique tools, and evaluation-focused task types covering lack-of-information, single-tool, and multi-tool settings. Experiments with strong tool-use LLMs show that current models still have difficulty with personalized delegation. Multi-tool coordination, missing-constraint inference, and long-horizon behavioral consistency remain major bottlenecks. These results suggest that personalization evaluation should move beyond asking whether outputs sound user-specific and instead ask whether LLMs make correct decisions for the users they represent.
Despite great advances in tool-use capabilities of large language models (LLMs), existing evaluation benchmarks struggle to fully align with real-world scenarios. Such benchmarks mostly rely on simulated idealized user assumptions and lacks experience-oriented evaluation. These limitations fail to account for the ambiguity, uncooperative behaviors, and shifting intentions characteristic of real-world users. To fill this gap, we propose RUT-Bench, a dedicated benchmark designed to assess LLMs under diverse Real-world User Tool calling scenarios. RUT-Bench supports high-fidelity simulations covering both ideal rational patterns and heterogeneous non-ideal behaviors across single-turn and multi-turn dialogues. We conduct comprehensive evaluations on 19 widely adopted open-source and proprietary LLMs using our benchmark. Experimental results reveal that no tested LLMs achieve an overall success rate above 40%, and nearly all of them experience noticeable performance drops when facing more complicated non-ideal user inputs. Our code and data is available at https://github.com/Miaow-Lab/RUT-Bench.
Tool calling is central to modern language model agents, but aggregate benchmark scores often hide where tool use fails. A model that never calls a needed tool and a model that calls the tool but ignores the result can look similar under final task accuracy. We introduce ToolFailBench, a diagnostic benchmark for measuring tool-use failures across 1,000 tasks in finance, medicine, law, cybersecurity, and real estate. Tool-required tasks return values the model wouldn't guess, forcing it to trust the tool while control tasks attach the same tools but should be answered directly. We label each trace with Tool-Skip, Result-Ignore, Output-Fabrication, and Unnecessary-Tool-Use, using a rule classifier and two LLM judges aggregated by majority vote. Across 19 headline models, the best reaches 86.33% Clean Tool-Use Rate, showing that faithful tool use is not saturated. More importantly, models with similar aggregate scores fail in different ways: most stay disciplined on no-tool controls, while Llama-3.1 models show an Always-Call pattern, and at the same parameter scale Llama-3.1-70B and Qwen2.5-72B differ by 89 percentage points on control-task accuracy. Tool-use evaluation should measure not only whether agents call tools, but whether they use tool outputs correctly and avoid tools when none is needed.