This paper presents BattleAgent, a detailed emulation demonstration system that combines the Large Vision-Language Model (VLM) and Multi-Agent System (MAS). This novel system aims to emulate complex dynamic interactions among multiple agents, as well as between agents and their environments, over a period of time. The emulation showcases the current capabilities of agents, featuring fine-grained multi-modal interactions between agents and landscapes. It develops customizable agent structures to meet specific situational requirements, for example, a variety of battle-related activities like scouting and trench digging. These components collaborate to recreate historical events in a lively and comprehensive manner. This methodology holds the potential to substantially improve visualization of historical events and deepen our understanding of historical events especially from the perspective of decision making. The data and code for this project are accessible at https://github.com/agiresearch/battleagent and the demo is accessible at https://drive.google.com/file/d/1I5B3KWiYCSSP1uMiPGNmXlTmild-MzRJ/view?usp=sharing.

Chain of Thought (CoT) is significant in improving the reasoning abilities of large language models (LLMs). However, the correlation between the effectiveness of CoT and the length of reasoning steps in prompts remains largely unknown. To shed light on this, we have conducted several empirical experiments to explore the relations. Specifically, we design experiments that expand and compress the rationale reasoning steps within CoT demonstrations, while keeping all other factors constant. We have the following key findings. First, the results indicate that lengthening the reasoning steps in prompts, even without adding new information into the prompt, considerably enhances LLMs’ reasoning abilities across multiple datasets. Alternatively, shortening the reasoning steps, even while preserving the key information, significantly diminishes the reasoning abilities of models. This finding highlights the importance of the number of steps in CoT prompts and provides practical guidance to make better use of LLMs’ potential in complex problem-solving scenarios. Second, we also investigated the relationship between the performance of CoT and the rationales used in demonstrations. Surprisingly, the result shows that even incorrect rationales can yield favorable outcomes if they maintain the requisite length of inference. Third, we observed that the advantages of increasing reasoning steps are task-dependent: simpler tasks require fewer steps, whereas complex tasks gain significantly from longer inference sequences.

Current knowledge editing approaches struggle to effectively propagate updates to interconnected facts.In this work, we delve into the barriers that hinder the appropriate propagation of updated knowledge within these models for accurate reasoning. To support our analysis, we introduce a novel reasoning-based benchmark, ReCoE (Reasoning-based Counterfactual Editing dataset), which covers six common reasoning schemes in the real world. We conduct an extensive analysis of existing knowledge editing techniques, including input-augmentation, finetuning, and locate-and-edit methods. We found that all model editing methods exhibit notably low performance on this dataset, especially within certain reasoning schemes. Our analysis of the chain-of-thought responses from edited models indicate that, while the models effectively update individual facts, they struggle to recall these facts in reasoning tasks. Moreover, locate-and-edit methods severely deteriorate the models’ language modeling capabilities, leading to poor perplexity and logical coherence in their outputs.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown exceptional results on current benchmarks when working individually. The advancement in their capabilities, along with a reduction in parameter size and inference times, has facilitated the use of these models as agents, enabling interactions among multiple models to execute complex tasks. Such collaborations offer several advantages, including the use of specialized models (e.g. coding), improved confidence through multiple computations, and enhanced divergent thinking, leading to more diverse outputs. Thus, the collaborative use of language models is expected to grow significantly in the coming years. In this work, we evaluate the behavior of a network of models collaborating through debate under the influence of an adversary. We introduce pertinent metrics to assess the adversary’s effectiveness, focusing on system accuracy and model agreement. Our findings highlight the importance of a model’s persuasive ability in influencing others. Additionally, we explore inference-time methods to generate more compelling arguments and evaluate the potential of prompt-based mitigation as a defensive strategy.

The rise of LLM-based agents shows great potential to revolutionize task planning, capturing significant attention. Given that these agents will be integrated into high-stake domains, ensuring their reliability and safety is crucial. This paper presents an Agent-Constitution-based agent framework, TrustAgent, with a particular focus on improving the LLM-based agent safety. The proposed framework ensures strict adherence to the Agent Constitution through three strategic components: pre-planning strategy which injects safety knowledge to the model before plan generation, in-planning strategy which enhances safety during plan generation, and post-planning strategy which ensures safety by post-planning inspection. Our experimental results demonstrate that the proposed framework can effectively enhance an LLM agent’s safety across multiple domains by identifying and mitigating potential dangers during the planning. Further analysis reveals that the framework not only improves safety but also enhances the helpfulness of the agent. Additionally, we highlight the importance of the LLM reasoning ability in adhering to the Constitution. This paper sheds light on how to ensure the safe integration of LLM-based agents into human-centric environments. Data and code are available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/TrustAgent-06DC.

Recent advances in Foundation Models such as Large Language Models (LLMs) have propelled them to the forefront of Recommender Systems (RS). Despite their utility, there is a growing concern that LLMs might inadvertently perpetuate societal stereotypes, resulting in unfair recommendations. Since fairness is critical for RS as many users take it for decision-making and demand fulfillment, this paper focuses on user-side fairness for LLM-based recommendation where the users may require a recommender system to be fair on specific sensitive features such as gender or age. In this paper, we dive into the extent of unfairness exhibited by LLM-based recommender models based on both T5 and LLaMA backbones, and discuss appropriate methods for promoting equitable treatment of users in LLM-based recommendation models. We introduce a novel Counterfactually-Fair-Prompt (CFP) method towards Unbiased Foundation mOdels (UFO) for fairness-aware LLM-based recommendation. Experiments are conducted on two real-world datasets, MovieLens-1M and Insurance, and compared with both matching-based and sequential-based fairness-aware recommendation models. Results show that CFP achieves better recommendation performance with a high level of fairness.

Complex reasoning ability is one of the most important features of Large Language Models (LLMs). Numerous benchmarks have been established to assess the reasoning abilities of LLMs. However, they are inadequate in offering a rigorous evaluation and prone to the risk of overfitting, as these publicly accessible and static benchmarks allow models to potentially tailor their responses to specific benchmark metrics, thereby inflating their performance. Addressing these limitations, we introduce a new benchmark NPHardEval. It contains a broad spectrum of 900 algorithmic questions belonging up to the NP-Hard complexity class, offering a rigorous measure of the reasoning ability of LLMs utilizing computational complexity. Moreover, this benchmark is designed with a dynamic update mechanism, where the datapoints are refreshed on a monthly basis. Such regular updates play a crucial role in mitigating the risk of LLMs overfitting to the benchmark, promoting a more accurate and reliable assessment of their reasoning capabilities. The benchmark dataset and code of NPHardEval are available at https://github.com/casmlab/NPHardEval.

The application of Natural Language Processing (NLP) to specialized domains, such as the law, has recently received a surge of interest. As many legal services rely on processing and analyzing large collections of documents, automating such tasks with NLP tools such as language models emerges as a key challenge since legal documents may contain specialized vocabulary from other domains, such as medical terminology in personal injury text. However, most language models are general-purpose models, which either have limited reasoning capabilities on highly specialized legal terminology and syntax, such as BERT or ROBERTA, or are expensive to run and tune, such as GPT-3.5 and Claude. Thus, in this paper, we propose a specialized language model for personal injury text, LEGALRELECTRA, which is trained on mixed-domain legal and medical corpora. We show that as a small language model, our model improves over general-domain and single-domain medical and legal language models when processing mixed-domain (personal injury) text. Our training architecture implements the ELECTRA framework but utilizes REFORMER instead of BERT for its generator and discriminator. We show that this improves the model’s performance on processing long passages and results in better long-range text comprehension.

Pretrained natural language processing (NLP) models have achieved high overall performance, but they still make systematic errors. Instead of manual error analysis, research on slice detection models (SDMs), which automatically identify underperforming groups of datapoints, has caught escalated attention in Computer Vision for both understanding model behaviors and providing insights for future model training and designing. However, little research on SDMs and quantitative evaluation of their effectiveness have been conducted on NLP tasks. Our paper fills the gap by proposing a benchmark named “Discover, Explain, Improve (DEIm)” for classification NLP tasks along with a new SDM Edisa. Edisa discovers coherent and underperforming groups of datapoints; DEIm then unites them under human-understandable concepts and provides comprehensive evaluation tasks and corresponding quantitative metrics. The evaluation in DEIm shows that Edisa can accurately select error-prone datapoints with informative semantic features that summarize error patterns. Detecting difficult datapoints directly boosts model performance without tuning any original model parameters, showing that discovered slices are actionable for users.1

Logical reasoning is a challenge for many current NLP neural network models since it requires more than the ability of learning informative representations from data. Inspired by the Dual Process Theory in cognitive science — which proposes that human cognition process involves two stages: an intuitive, unconscious and fast process relying on perception calledSystem 1, and a logical, conscious and slow process performing complex reasoning called System 2 — we leverage neural logic reasoning (System 2) on top of the representation learning models (System 1), which conducts explicit neural-based differentiable logical reasoning on top of the representations learned by the base neural models. Based on experiments on the commonsense knowledge graph completion task, we show that the two-system architecture always improves from its System 1 model alone. Experiments also show that both the rule-driven logical regularizer and the data-driven value regularizer are important and the performance improvement is marginal without the two regularizers, which indicates that learning from both logical prior and training data is important for reasoning tasks.

Existing OIE (Open Information Extraction) algorithms are independent of each other such that there exist lots of redundant works; the featured strategies are not reusable and not adaptive to new tasks. This paper proposes a new pipeline to build OIE systems, where an Open-domain Information eXpression (OIX) task is proposed to provide a platform for all OIE strategies. The OIX is an OIE friendly expression of a sentence without information loss. The generation procedure of OIX contains shared works of OIE algorithms so that OIE strategies can be developed on the platform of OIX as inference operations focusing on more critical problems. Based on the same platform of OIX, the OIE strategies are reusable, and people can select a set of strategies to assemble their algorithm for a specific task so that the adaptability may be significantly increased. This paper focuses on the task of OIX and propose a solution – Open Information Annotation (OIA). OIA is a predicate-function-argument annotation for sentences. We label a data set of sentence-OIA pairs and propose a dependency-based rule system to generate OIA annotations from sentences. The evaluation results reveal that learning the OIA from a sentence is a challenge owing to the complexity of natural language sentences, and it is worthy of attracting more attention from the research community.