Papers › Beyond Static Evaluation: A Dynamic Approach to Assessing AI Assistants' API...
Beyond Static Evaluation: A Dynamic Approach to Assessing AI Assistants' API Invocation Capabilities
Honglin Mu, Yang Xu, Yunlong Feng, Xiaofeng Han, Yitong Li, Yutai Hou, Wanxiang Che
With the rise of Large Language Models (LLMs), AI assistants' ability to utilize tools, especially through API calls, has advanced notably. This progress has necessitated more accurate evaluation methods. Many existing studies adopt static evaluation, where they assess AI assistants' API call based on pre-defined dialogue histories. However, such evaluation method can be misleading, as an AI assistant might fail in generating API calls from preceding human interaction in real cases. Instead of the resource-intensive method of direct human-machine interactions, we propose Automated Dynamic Evaluation (AutoDE) to assess an assistant's API call capability without human involvement. In our framework, we endeavor to closely mirror genuine human conversation patterns in human-machine interactions, using a LLM-based user agent, equipped with a user script to ensure human alignment. Experimental results highlight that AutoDE uncovers errors overlooked by static evaluations, aligning more closely with human assessment. Testing four AI assistants using our crafted benchmark, our method further mirrored human evaluation compared to conventional static evaluations.
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections