arXiv:2511.01527cs.AI2025-11ACL被引 5

评测大模型在复杂任务中规划和调度多种工具的能力

TPS-Bench: Evaluating AI Agents' Tool Planning \& Scheduling Abilities in Compounding Tasks

  • 构建包含200个复合任务的基准测试集,需多步工具协同完成
  • GLM-4.5完成率64.72%但耗时长,GPT-4o并行调用却仅45.08%完成率
  • 用强化学习微调可提升效率14%且完成率提高6%,仅需100样本

大语言模型(LLM)代理在科研、编程等领域展现出强大的问题求解能力。然而,其在需要调用多样化工具完成复合型现实任务方面的能力仍待探索。面对广泛且异构的工具库,LLM代理不仅需基于任务规划选择合适工具,还需策略性地安排执行顺序以保证效率。本文提出TPS-Bench,用于评估LLM代理在工具规划与调度方面的能力。该基准涵盖200个不同难度级别的复合任务,基于包含数百个模型上下文协议(MCP)工具的工具库构建。每个任务由多个子任务组成,如网络搜索、地图导航、日历查询等,每个子任务可由基础工具完成。评估关注任务完成率与执行效率。对主流闭源与开源模型的实证研究显示,多数模型具备合理工具规划能力,但在调度上差异显著。例如,GLM-4.5通过大量串行工具调用实现64.72%的完成率,但执行时间显著延长;而GPT-4o优先并行调用,完成率仅为45.08%。考虑到强化学习(RL)可能在不降低性能的前提下提升调度效率,我们对Qwen3-1.7B进行初步研究,仅用100次训练样本即实现执行时间减少14%、任务完成率提升6%。代码已开源:https://github.com/hanwenxu1/mcp-agent。

原文摘要 · Abstract (English)

Large language model (LLM) agents have exhibited strong problem-solving competence across domains like research and coding. Yet, it remains underexplored whether LLM agents can tackle compounding real-world problems that require a diverse set of tools to complete. Given a broad, heterogeneous tool repository, LLM agents must not only select appropriate tools based on task planning analysis but also strategically schedule the execution order to ensure efficiency. This paper introduces TPS-Bench to benchmark the ability of LLM agents in solving such problems that demand Tool Planning and Scheduling. TPS-Bench collects 200 compounding tasks of two difficulty levels, based on a tool repository containing hundreds of model context protocol (MCP) tools. In particular, each task is composed of multiple subtasks, such as web search, map navigation, calendar checking, etc., and each subtask can be completed by a basic tool. Our evaluation emphasizes both task completion rate and efficiency. The empirical studies on popular closed-source and open-source LLMs indicate that most models can perform reasonable tool planning, but differ in scheduling. For example, GLM-4.5 achieves an outperforming task completion rate of 64.72% with extensive sequential tool calls, hence suffering from significantly long execution time. By contrast, GPT-4o prioritizes parallel tool calls but achieves only a 45.08% completion rate. Considering reinforcement learning (RL) can be a viable way to improve the scheduling efficiency without compromising performance, we perform an initial study on Qwen3-1.7B and witness a 14% reduction in execution time alongside a 6% gain in task completion rate based on rarely 100 RL training samples. Our code is available https://github.com/hanwenxu1/mcp-agent.

工具调度大模型评测强化学习

Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。