Small LLMs Are Weak Tool Learners: A Multi-LLM Agent
Large Language Model (LLM) agents significantly extend the capabilities of standalone LLMs, empowering them to interact with external tools (e.g., APIs, functions) and complete various tasks in a self-directed fashion. The challenge of tool use demands that LLMs not only understand user queries and generate answers accurately but also excel in task planning, tool invocation, and result summarization. While traditional works focus on training a single LLM with all these capabilities, performance limitations become apparent, particularly with smaller models. To overcome these challenges, we propose a novel approach that decomposes the aforementioned capabilities into a planner, caller, and summarizer. Each component is implemented by a single LLM that focuses on a specific capability and collaborates with others to accomplish the task. This modular framework facilitates individual updates and the potential use of smaller LLMs for building each capability. To effectively train this framework, we introduce a two-stage training paradigm. First, we fine-tune a backbone LLM on the entire dataset without discriminating sub-tasks, providing the model with a comprehensive understanding of the task. Second, the fine-tuned LLM is used to instantiate the planner, caller, and summarizer respectively, which are continually fine-tuned on respective sub-tasks.
In addition to exploring proprietary LLMs like GPT-4, researchers have also actively engaged in developing customizable agent systems by finetuning open-source LLMs on diverse tool-use datasets (Patil et al., 2023; Tang et al., 2023; Qin et al., 2023b; Gou et al., 2023). The challenge of tool learning demands sufficiently large and complex LLMs. These models must not only comprehend user queries but also excel in task planning, tool selection and invocation, and result summarization (Yujia et al., 2023). These capabilities draw upon different facets of the LLMs; for instance, planning relies more on reasoning ability, while tool selection and invocation demand legal and accurate request writing, and result summarization requires adept conclusion-drawing skills.
Lines of inquiry this paper opens 24
Research framings built by reading the notes related to this paper — the questions it feeds into.
Can models learn to request clarification instead of guessing on incomplete prompts? How should information retrieval adapt across different multi-step reasoning needs?- What makes proactive tool retrieval better than single-round semantic matching?
- Could eliminating retrieval entirely work better than shifting the burden?
- How does semantic mismatch between user language and API documentation degrade tool retrieval?
- When should a system decide to retrieve versus reason alone?
- Should retrieval be triggered by model uncertainty or fixed intervals?
- How should retrieval and verification tasks be separated architecturally?
- How should retrieval systems decide when to fetch new information?
- What role does document reranking play alongside decisions about whether to retrieve?
- How should retrieval triggers use model uncertainty instead of fixed intervals?
- What are the 27 external features that predict retrieval need?
- Can retrieval systems decide when to retrieve instead of always querying?