Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies

HFEPX · Eval paper review

Try, Check and Retry: A Divide-and-Conquer Framework for Boosting Long-context Tool-Calling Performance of LLMs

Kunfeng Chen, Qihuang Zhong, Juhua Liu, Bo Du +1 more

Published

Mar 12, 2026

Citations

0

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 (Low)

Extraction confidence

25% (Low)

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Rater population

Not reported

Signals refreshed

Mar 12, 2026

Open arXiv Find implementation Shortlist (0) RSS feed

Should you rely on this paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

What to verify

Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Human feedback signal
Not explicit
Not explicit in abstract metadata
Evaluation signal
Weak or implicit
Validate from full paper
Usefulness for eval research
0/100
Adjacent candidate

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here

Human Eval Papers LLM-as-Judge Papers Pairwise Preference Papers Tool-Use Evaluation Search

Abstract

Tool-calling empowers Large Language Models (LLMs) to interact with external environments. However, current methods often struggle to handle massive and noisy candidate tools in long-context tool-calling tasks, limiting their real-world application. To this end, we propose Tool-DC, a Divide-and-Conquer framework for boosting tool-calling performance of LLMs. The core of Tool-DC is to reduce the reasoning difficulty and make full use of self-reflection ability of LLMs via a "Try-Check-Retry" paradigm. Specifically, Tool-DC involves two variants: 1) the training-free Tool-DC (TF), which is plug-and-play and flexible; 2) the training-based Tool-DC (TB), which is more inference-efficient. Extensive experiments show that both Tool-DC methods outperform their counterparts by a clear margin. Tool-DC (TF) brings up to +25.10% average gains against the baseline on BFCL and ACEBench benchmarks, while Tool-DC (TB) enables Qwen2.5-7B to achieve comparable or even better performance than proprietary LLMs, e.g., OpenAI o3 and Claude-Haiku-4.5.

What we could verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"Tool-calling empowers Large Language Models (LLMs) to interact with external environments."

Evaluation Modes

missing

None explicit

Validate eval design from full paper text.

"Tool-calling empowers Large Language Models (LLMs) to interact with external environments."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"Tool-calling empowers Large Language Models (LLMs) to interact with external environments."

Benchmarks / Datasets

partial

BFCL, Acebench

Useful for quick benchmark comparison.

"Tool-DC (TF) brings up to +25.10% average gains against the baseline on BFCL and ACEBench benchmarks, while Tool-DC (TB) enables Qwen2.5-7B to achieve comparable or even better performance than proprietary LLMs, e.g., OpenAI o3 and Claude-Haiku-4.5."

Reported Metrics

missing

Not extracted

No metric anchors detected.

"Tool-calling empowers Large Language Models (LLMs) to interact with external environments."

Benchmarks and datasets

BFCLAcebench

Reported metrics

No metric terms were extracted from the available abstract.

Human feedback details
Uses human feedback
No
Feedback types
None
Rater population
Not reported
Expertise required
General
Evaluation details
Evaluation modes
None
Agentic eval
None
Quality controls
Not reported
Evidence quality
Low
Use this page as
Background context only

Research brief

Metadata summary

Tool-calling empowers Large Language Models (LLMs) to interact with external environments.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key takeaways

  • Tool-calling empowers Large Language Models (LLMs) to interact with external environments.
  • However, current methods often struggle to handle massive and noisy candidate tools in long-context tool-calling tasks, limiting their real-world application.
  • To this end, we propose Tool-DC, a Divide-and-Conquer framework for boosting tool-calling performance of LLMs.

Researcher actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Check the full text for explicit evaluation design choices (raters, protocol, and metrics).
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended queries

Contribution summary

  • To this end, we propose Tool-DC, a Divide-and-Conquer framework for boosting tool-calling performance of LLMs.
  • Tool-DC (TF) brings up to +25.10% average gains against the baseline on BFCL and ACEBench benchmarks, while Tool-DC (TB) enables Qwen2.5-7B to achieve comparable or even better performance than proprietary LLMs, e.g., OpenAI o3 and…

Why it matters for eval

  • Tool-DC (TF) brings up to +25.10% average gains against the baseline on BFCL and ACEBench benchmarks, while Tool-DC (TB) enables Qwen2.5-7B to achieve comparable or even better performance than proprietary LLMs, e.g., OpenAI o3 and…

Researcher checklist

  • Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Evaluation mode is explicit

    No clear evaluation mode extracted.

  • Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    Detected: BFCL, Acebench

  • Metric reporting is present

    No metric terms extracted.