SuperFC: Selective Data Utilization for a Sustainable and Effective Function-Calling Agent
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The function-calling agent is obtained by performing agent tuning to the large language model (LLM) on function-calling dataset. However, even state-of-the-art datasets (e.g., xlam-function-calling-60k datasets) still contain numerous misleading examples of low-quality data, wasting significant computational resources and result in an unnecessary carbon footprint. Furthermore, such inductive bad data negatively impacts the performance of the agent. In this paper, we propose a set of scoring criteria specifically tailored to evaluate function-calling data and use these criteria to develop a data filtering framework. By applying this framework to filter out low-quality data, we fine-tuned SuperFC, which demonstrates substantial improvements in both sustainability and performance. The SuperFC-7B training process reduced training time from 455 minutes to 85 minutes, resulting in a 80.02% reduction in carbon footprint. Simultaneously, fine-tuning on high-quality data subsets led to performance improvements of up to 3.68%. Additionally, we provide an in-depth analysis of the causes behind the low quality of synthetic function-calling data, offering valuable insights for future data synthesis in this domain. We have also released a high-quality function-calling dataset, available at: https://github.com/Zire-Young/SuperFC
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".