ACEBench: Who Wins the Match Point in Tool Learning?

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated significant potential in decision-making and reasoning, especially when combined with various tools to effectively solve complex problems. However, existing evaluation systems for assessing LLM function calling capabilities have several limitations: (1) limited evaluation scenarios, lacking assessments in real multi-turn dialogue contexts; (2) narrow evaluation dimensions, lacking detailed assessments for fine-grained function calls; (3) relying on LLMs or real API executions for result evaluation, which introduces significant overhead. To address these issues, we propose a comprehensive evaluation system named ACEBench. This system is meticulously designed to encompass a wide spectrum of function calling scenarios. Moreover, it categorizes these scenarios into three primary types according to the evaluation methodology: Normal, Special, and Agent. Normal evaluates function calls in basic scenarios; Special evaluates function calls in scenarios with vague or incomplete instructions; Agent introduces multi-agent interactions to simulate function calling evaluation in real-world multi-turn interactions. We conducted extensive experiments on ACEBench, analyzing various LLMs in-depth and performing a more granular analysis of error causes across different data types.