## Bar Chart: Tool Call Ratio Comparison ### Overview The image presents two bar charts comparing the tool call ratio (%) for different search methods (Base Generator, Google Search, Web Search, Wikipedia Search) at two training steps (Step 0 and Step 32) after fine-tuning. Chart (a) shows results for the "2Wiki" dataset, and chart (b) shows results for the "MedQA" dataset. The charts also display the accuracy (Acc) at each step and the change in accuracy after fine-tuning. ### Components/Axes * **Y-axis:** Tool Call Ratio (%), ranging from 0 to 80. * **X-axis:** Training Steps, with two categories: Step 0 and Step 32. * **Legend (Top-Left):** * Base Generator (Red) * Google Search (Green) * Web Search (Blue) * Wikipedia Search (Purple) * **Titles:** * (a) 2Wiki * (b) MedQA * **Accuracy Labels:** Displayed above the bars for Step 0 and Step 32 in each chart, showing the accuracy and the change in accuracy after fine-tuning. * **Arrow:** A gray arrow indicates the progression from Step 0 to Step 32. ### Detailed Analysis **Chart (a) 2Wiki:** * **Base Generator (Red):** * Step 0: Approximately 1% * Step 32: Approximately 1% * Trend: Relatively constant at a low value. * **Google Search (Green):** * Step 0: 28.5% * Step 32: 70.5% * Trend: Significant increase from Step 0 to Step 32. * **Web Search (Blue):** * Step 0: 36.0% * Step 32: 13.6% * Trend: Significant decrease from Step 0 to Step 32. * **Wikipedia Search (Purple):** * Step 0: 28.8% * Step 32: 4.0% * Trend: Significant decrease from Step 0 to Step 32. * **Accuracy:** * Step 0: Acc: 60.0% * Step 32: Acc: 77.2% (+17.2%) **Chart (b) MedQA:** * **Base Generator (Red):** * Step 0: 28.7% * Step 32: 6.3% * Trend: Significant decrease from Step 0 to Step 32. * **Google Search (Green):** * Step 0: 66.2% * Step 32: 10.9% * Trend: Significant decrease from Step 0 to Step 32. * **Web Search (Blue):** * Step 0: Approximately 1% * Step 32: 19.5% * Trend: Significant increase from Step 0 to Step 32. * **Wikipedia Search (Purple):** * Step 0: Approximately 1% * Step 32: 59.8% * Trend: Significant increase from Step 0 to Step 32. * **Accuracy:** * Step 0: Acc: 76.0% * Step 32: Acc: 80.0% (+4.0%) ### Key Observations * In the 2Wiki dataset, Google Search shows a significant increase in tool call ratio after fine-tuning, while Web Search and Wikipedia Search show a significant decrease. * In the MedQA dataset, Web Search and Wikipedia Search show a significant increase in tool call ratio after fine-tuning, while Base Generator and Google Search show a significant decrease. * The accuracy increases after fine-tuning in both datasets, but the increase is more substantial for the 2Wiki dataset (+17.2%) compared to the MedQA dataset (+4.0%). ### Interpretation The charts illustrate the impact of fine-tuning on the tool call ratio for different search methods across two datasets. The contrasting trends between the 2Wiki and MedQA datasets suggest that the effectiveness of each search method is highly dependent on the specific dataset and task. The increase in accuracy after fine-tuning indicates that the model is learning to utilize the tools more effectively, but the varying tool call ratios suggest that the optimal strategy for tool usage differs between the two datasets. The data suggests that fine-tuning leads to specialization in tool usage, with some tools becoming more prominent while others become less so, depending on the dataset.