Tools are essential for large language models (LLMs) to acquire up-to-date information and take consequential actions in external environments. Existing work on tool-augmented LLMs primarily focuses on the broad coverage of tools and the flexibility of adding new tools. However, a critical aspect that has surprisingly been understudied is simply how accurately an LLM uses tools for which it has been trained. We find that existing LLMs, including GPT-4 and open-source LLMs specifically fine-tuned for tool use, only reach a correctness rate in the range of 30% to 60%, far from reliable use in practice. We propose a biologically inspired method for tool-augmented LLMs, simulated trial and error (STE), that orchestrates three key mechanisms for successful tool use behaviors in the biological system: trial and error, imagination, and memory. Specifically, STE leverages an LLM’s ‘imagination’ to simulate plausible scenarios for using a tool, after which the LLM interacts with the tool to learn from its execution feedback. Both short-term and long-term memory are employed to improve the depth and breadth of the exploration, respectively. Comprehensive experiments on ToolBench show that STE substantially improves tool learning for LLMs under both in-context learning and fine-tuning settings, bringing a boost of 46.7% to Mistral-Instruct-7B and enabling it to outperform GPT-4. We also show effective continual learning of tools via a simple experience replay strategy.

The rapid progress in open-source Large Language Models (LLMs) is significantly driving AI development forward. However, there is still a limited understanding of their trustworthiness. Deploying these models at scale without sufficient trustworthiness can pose significant risks, highlighting the need to uncover these issues promptly. In this work, we conduct an adversarial assessment of open-source LLMs on trustworthiness, scrutinizing them across eight different aspects including toxicity, stereotypes, ethics, hallucination, fairness, sycophancy, privacy, and robustness against adversarial demonstrations. We propose advCoU, an extended Chain of Utterances-based (CoU) prompting strategy by incorporating carefully crafted malicious demonstrations for trustworthiness attack. Our extensive experiments encompass recent and representative series of open-source LLMs, including Vicuna, MPT, Falcon, Mistral, and Llama 2. The empirical outcomes underscore the efficacy of our attack strategy across diverse aspects. More interestingly, our result analysis reveals that models with superior performance in general NLP tasks do not always have greater trustworthiness; in fact, larger models can be more vulnerable to attacks. Additionally, models that have undergone instruction tuning, focusing on instruction following, tend to be more susceptible, although fine-tuning LLMs for safety alignment proves effective in mitigating adversarial trustworthiness attacks.

Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting can dramatically improve the multi-step reasoning abilities of large language models (LLMs). CoT explicitly encourages the LLM to generate intermediate rationales for solving a problem, by providing a series of reasoning steps in the demonstrations. Despite its success, there is still little understanding of what makes CoT prompting effective and which aspects of the demonstrated reasoning steps contribute to its performance. In this paper, we show that CoT reasoning is possible even with invalid demonstrations - prompting with invalid reasoning steps can achieve over 80-90% of the performance obtained using CoT under various metrics, while still generating coherent lines of reasoning during inference. Further experiments show that other aspects of the rationales, such as being relevant to the query and correctly ordering the reasoning steps, are much more important for effective CoT reasoning. Overall, these findings both deepen our understanding of CoT prompting, and open up new questions regarding LLMs’ capability to learn to reason in context.

A recent focus of large language model (LLM) development, as exemplified by generative search engines, is to incorporate external references to generate and support its claims. However, evaluating the attribution, i.e., verifying whether the generated statement is fully supported by the cited reference, remains an open problem. Although human evaluation is common practice, it is costly and time-consuming. In this paper, we investigate automatic evaluation of attribution given by LLMs. We begin by defining different types of attribution errors, and then explore two approaches for automatic evaluation: prompting LLMs and fine-tuning smaller LMs. The fine-tuning data is repurposed from related tasks such as question answering, fact-checking, natural language inference, and summarization. We manually curate a set of test examples covering 12 domains from a generative search engine, New Bing. Our results on this curated test set and simulated examples from existing benchmarks highlight both promising signals and challenges. We hope our problem formulation, testbeds, and findings will help lay the foundation for future studies on this important problem.

Large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT and GPT-4 have shown impressive performance in complex reasoning tasks. However, it is difficult to know whether the models are reasoning based on deep understandings of truth and logic, or leveraging their memorized patterns in a relatively superficial way. In this work, we explore testing LLMs’ reasoning by engaging with them in a debate-like conversation, where given a question, the LLM and the user need to discuss to make the correct decision starting from opposing arguments. Upon mitigating the Clever Hans effect, our task requires the LLM to not only achieve the correct answer on its own, but also be able to hold and defend its belief instead of blindly believing or getting misled by the user’s (invalid) arguments and critiques, thus testing in greater depth whether the LLM grasps the essence of the reasoning required to solve the problem. Across a range of complex reasoning benchmarks spanning math, commonsense, logic and BIG-Bench tasks, we find that despite their impressive performance as reported in existing work on generating correct step-by-step solutions in the beginning, LLMs like ChatGPT cannot maintain their beliefs in truth for a significant portion of examples when challenged by oftentimes absurdly invalid arguments. Our work points to danger zones of model alignment, and also suggests more careful treatments and interpretations of the recent findings that LLMs can improve their responses based on feedback.

While Pre-trained Language Models (PLMs) internalize a great amount of world knowledge, they have been shown incapable of recalling these knowledge to solve tasks requiring complex & multi-step reasoning. Similar to how humans develop a “chain of thought” for these tasks, how can we equip PLMs with such abilities? In this work, we explore an iterative prompting framework, a new prompting paradigm which progressively elicits relevant knowledge from PLMs for multi-step inference. We identify key limitations of existing prompting methods, namely they are either restricted to queries with a single identifiable relation/predicate, or being agnostic to input contexts, which makes it difficult to capture variabilities across different inference steps. We propose an iterative context-aware prompter, which addresses these limitations by learning to dynamically synthesize prompts conditioned on the current step’s contexts. Experiments on three datasets involving multi-step reasoning show the effectiveness of the iterative scheme and the context-aware prompter design.