CAREFUL-Bench: 针对多轮 LLM 函数调用的效果感知评测基准
CAREFUL-Bench: Effect-Aware, Judge-Free Evaluation of Multi-Turn LLM Function Calling
BFCL 有个盲区:模型调用函数前先确认会被扣分。这篇给 BFCL 加了效果感知评分,还发现函数文档加副作用提示对 8 个模型都没用。
CAREFUL-Bench 在 Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard(BFCL)基础上做了效果感知改造,覆盖 128 个函数和 800 条参考轨迹。评测发现 734 个基础类参考轮次中有 260 个在未确认的情况下执行破坏性操作。新的无裁判重放评分器在 11 个开源模型上保持官方排名,同时能额外统计未请求的破坏性调用、重复写入和冗余读取,排名第一的模型因破坏性调用损失 14.0 分,冗余步骤最多消耗 28% 的输入 token。引入可模拟用户回复的确认协议后,主动请求确认的模型最多可挽回 4 分,但表现最好的模型在 576 个需显式确认的对话中只完成 6 个。
CAREFUL-Bench: Effect-Aware, Judge-Free Evaluation of Multi-Turn LLM Function Calling
The multi-turn checker of the Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) evaluates final state correctness but ignores the effects of intermediate calls: extra calls are free, function documentation does not describe side effects, and the scripted user never responds to proposals. Consequently, models asking for confirmation before destructive actions are penalized; 260 of 734 reference turns in the base category perform destructive actions without confirmation. We make BFCL effect-aware without replacing it. We infer effect declarations for all 128 functions by executing them in BFCL simulators and comparing state changes, with destructive writes identified by three annotators. A judge-free replay scorer reproduces official results across all 800 reference trajectories while reporting unrequested destructive calls, duplicate writes, redundant reads, surplus steps, and their token costs. We also introduce a confirmation-aware protocol with a deterministic simulated user. Across 11 open models, effect-aware scoring preserves the official ranking but reveals substantial differences in execution quality: the leading model loses 14.0 points due to unrequested destructive calls, while surplus steps consume up to 28% of input tokens. Adding effect hints to function documentation has no impact on eight evaluated models. Allowing the simulated user to respond recovers up to four points for models that seek confirmation. However, the best model completes only six of 576 conversations requiring destructive actions with explicit confirmation. These results expose a key limitation of current function-calling benchmarks: they cannot distinguish between asking for clarification and obtaining permission before potentially destructive actions.