Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
To resolve the feature imbalance and inefficiency of standard generate-then-filter pipelines for agent training, the authors designed ToolLoop, a closed-loop synthesis framework that decomposes data generation into ground-truth tool sampling, backward query derivation, and forward tool calling. This generate-verify-refine paradigm incorporates dynamic self-feedback at each stage, drastically improving data quality and density compared to static post-hoc filtering. Trained on only 11K ToolLoop examples, a 4B parameter model achieves 86.40% on the Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) and generalizes to ACEBench with 72.1% accuracy using just 18.3% of baseline data volume.
A 4B parameter model hits 86.4% on the Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard using just 11K synthetic examples, proving that decomposed generate-verify-refine loops can outperform massive, brute-force filtered datasets.
High-quality tool-use data is critical for training language models to interact effectively with external tools. However, existing synthetic approaches typically follow a generate-then-filter paradigm with static post-hoc verification, often yielding inefficient data with imbalanced feature distributions. We propose ToolLoop, a closed-loop framework that decomposes synthesis into three progressive stages: (1) sampling function name combinations as ground truth; (2) backward derivation of user queries; and (3) forward derivation of tool calls. At each stage, dynamic self-feedback iteratively guides the model toward high-quality generation, realizing a transition from generate-then-filter to generate-verify-refine. On the Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL), a 4B parameter model trained with our 11K synthetic examples achieves 86.40% accuracy in non-reasoning mode, while an Isolate variant that removes BFCL-overlapping candidate functions still reaches 86.07\%. Cross-benchmark evaluation on ACEBench further demonstrates strong generalization, with 72.1% overall accuracy using only 18.3% of baseline training data.
