A Scalable Communication Protocol for Networks of Large Language Models

Communication is a prerequisite for collaboration. When scaling networks of AI-powered agents, communication must be versatile, efficient, and portable. These requisites, which we refer to as the Agent Communication Trilemma, are hard to achieve in large networks of agents. We introduce Agora, a meta protocol that leverages existing communication standards to make LLM-powered agents solve complex problems efficiently. In Agora, agents typically use standardised routines for frequent communications, natural language for rare communications, and LLM-written routines for everything in between. Agora sidesteps the Agent Communication Trilemma and robustly handles changes in interfaces and members, allowing unprecedented scalability with full decentralisation and minimal involvement of human beings. On large Agora networks, we observe the emergence of self-organising, fully automated protocols that achieve complex goals without human intervention.

A Notion of Complexity for Theory of Mind via Discrete World Models

Theory of Mind (ToM) can be used to assess the capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) in complex scenarios where social reasoning is required. While the research community has proposed many ToM benchmarks, their hardness varies greatly, and their complexity is not well defined. This work proposes a framework to measure the complexity of ToM tasks. We quantify a problem's complexity as the number of states necessary to solve it correctly. Our complexity measure also accounts for spurious states of a ToM problem designed to make it apparently harder. We use our method to assess the complexity of five widely adopted ToM benchmarks. On top of this framework, we design a prompting technique that augments the information available to a model with a description of how the environment changes with the agents' interactions. We name this technique Discrete World Models (DWM) and show how it elicits superior performance on ToM tasks.

Computational Asymmetries in Robust Classification

In the context of adversarial robustness, we make three strongly related contributions. First, we prove that while attacking ReLU classifiers is $\mathit{NP}$-hard, ensuring their robustness at training time is $\Sigma^2_P$-hard (even on a single example). This asymmetry provides a rationale for the fact that robust classifications approaches are frequently fooled in the literature. Second, we show that inference-time robustness certificates are not affected by this asymmetry, by introducing a proof-of-concept approach named Counter-Attack (CA). Indeed, CA displays a reversed asymmetry: running the defense is $\mathit{NP}$-hard, while attacking it is $\Sigma_2^P$-hard. Finally, motivated by our previous result, we argue that adversarial attacks can be used in the context of robustness certification, and provide an empirical evaluation of their effectiveness. As a byproduct of this process, we also release UG100, a benchmark dataset for adversarial attacks.