BALROG: Benchmarking Agentic LLM and VLM Reasoning On Games

Large Language Models (LLMs) and Vision Language Models (VLMs) possess extensive knowledge and exhibit promising reasoning abilities; however, they still struggle to perform well in complex, dynamic environments. Real-world tasks require handling intricate interactions, advanced spatial reasoning, long-term planning, and continuous exploration of new strategies-areas in which we lack effective methodologies for comprehensively evaluating these capabilities. To address this gap, we introduce BALROG, a novel benchmark designed to assess the agentic capabilities of LLMs and VLMs through a diverse set of challenging games. Our benchmark incorporates a range of existing reinforcement learning environments with varying levels of difficulty, including tasks that are solvable by non-expert humans in seconds to extremely challenging ones that may take years to master (e.g., the NetHack Learning Environment). We devise fine-grained metrics to measure performance and conduct an extensive evaluation of several popular open-source and closed-source LLMs and VLMs. Our findings indicate that while current models achieve partial success in the easier games, they struggle significantly with more challenging tasks. Notably, we observe severe deficiencies in vision-based decision-making, as models perform worse when visual representations of the environments are provided. We release BALROG as an open and user-friendly benchmark to facilitate future research and development in the agentic community.

Procedural Knowledge in Pretraining Drives Reasoning in Large Language Models

The capabilities and limitations of Large Language Models have been sketched out in great detail in recent years, providing an intriguing yet conflicting picture. On the one hand, LLMs demonstrate a general ability to solve problems. On the other hand, they show surprising reasoning gaps when compared to humans, casting doubt on the robustness of their generalisation strategies. The sheer volume of data used in the design of LLMs has precluded us from applying the method traditionally used to measure generalisation: train-test set separation. To overcome this, we study what kind of generalisation strategies LLMs employ when performing reasoning tasks by investigating the pretraining data they rely on. For two models of different sizes (7B and 35B) and 2.5B of their pretraining tokens, we identify what documents influence the model outputs for three simple mathematical reasoning tasks and contrast this to the data that are influential for answering factual questions. We find that, while the models rely on mostly distinct sets of data for each factual question, a document often has a similar influence across different reasoning questions within the same task, indicating the presence of procedural knowledge. We further find that the answers to factual questions often show up in the most influential data. However, for reasoning questions the answers usually do not show up as highly influential, nor do the answers to the intermediate reasoning steps. When we characterise the top ranked documents for the reasoning questions qualitatively, we confirm that the influential documents often contain procedural knowledge, like demonstrating how to obtain a solution using formulae or code. Our findings indicate that the approach to reasoning the models use is unlike retrieval, and more like a generalisable strategy that synthesises procedural knowledge from documents doing a similar form of reasoning.

TICKing All the Boxes: Generated Checklists Improve LLM Evaluation and Generation

Given the widespread adoption and usage of Large Language Models (LLMs), it is crucial to have flexible and interpretable evaluations of their instruction-following ability. Preference judgments between model outputs have become the de facto evaluation standard, despite distilling complex, multi-faceted preferences into a single ranking. Furthermore, as human annotation is slow and costly, LLMs are increasingly used to make these judgments, at the expense of reliability and interpretability. In this work, we propose TICK (Targeted Instruct-evaluation with ChecKlists), a fully automated, interpretable evaluation protocol that structures evaluations with LLM-generated, instruction-specific checklists. We first show that, given an instruction, LLMs can reliably produce high-quality, tailored evaluation checklists that decompose the instruction into a series of YES/NO questions. Each question asks whether a candidate response meets a specific requirement of the instruction. We demonstrate that using TICK leads to a significant increase (46.4% $\to$ 52.2%) in the frequency of exact agreements between LLM judgements and human preferences, as compared to having an LLM directly score an output. We then show that STICK (Self-TICK) can be used to improve generation quality across multiple benchmarks via self-refinement and Best-of-N selection. STICK self-refinement on LiveBench reasoning tasks leads to an absolute gain of $+$7.8%, whilst Best-of-N selection with STICK attains $+$6.3% absolute improvement on the real-world instruction dataset, WildBench. In light of this, structured, multi-faceted self-improvement is shown to be a promising way to further advance LLM capabilities. Finally, by providing LLM-generated checklists to human evaluators tasked with directly scoring LLM responses to WildBench instructions, we notably increase inter-annotator agreement (0.194 $\to$ 0.256).

Outliers and Calibration Sets have Diminishing Effect on Quantization of Modern LLMs

Post-Training Quantization (PTQ) enhances the efficiency of Large Language Models (LLMs) by enabling faster operation and compatibility with more accessible hardware through reduced memory usage, at the cost of small performance drops. We explore the role of calibration sets in PTQ, specifically their effect on hidden activations in various notable open-source LLMs. Calibration sets are crucial for evaluating activation magnitudes and identifying outliers, which can distort the quantization range and negatively impact performance. Our analysis reveals a marked contrast in quantization effectiveness across models. The older OPT model, upon which much of the quantization literature is based, shows significant performance deterioration and high susceptibility to outliers with varying calibration sets. In contrast, newer models like Llama-2 7B, Llama-3 8B, Command-R 35B, and Mistral 7B demonstrate strong robustness, with Mistral 7B showing near-immunity to outliers and stable activations. These findings suggest a shift in PTQ strategies might be needed. As advancements in pre-training methods reduce the relevance of outliers, there is an emerging need to reassess the fundamentals of current quantization literature. The emphasis should pivot towards optimizing inference speed, rather than primarily focusing on outlier preservation, to align with the evolving characteristics of state-of-the-art LLMs.

Rainbow Teaming: Open-Ended Generation of Diverse Adversarial Prompts

As large language models (LLMs) become increasingly prevalent across many real-world applications, understanding and enhancing their robustness to user inputs is of paramount importance. Existing methods for identifying adversarial prompts tend to focus on specific domains, lack diversity, or require extensive human annotations. To address these limitations, we present Rainbow Teaming, a novel approach for producing a diverse collection of adversarial prompts. Rainbow Teaming casts adversarial prompt generation as a quality-diversity problem, and uses open-ended search to generate prompts that are both effective and diverse. It can uncover a model's vulnerabilities across a broad range of domains including, in this paper, safety, question answering, and cybersecurity. We also demonstrate that fine-tuning on synthetic data generated by Rainbow Teaming improves the safety of state-of-the-art LLMs without hurting their general capabilities and helpfulness, paving the path to open-ended self-improvement.

Genie: Generative Interactive Environments

We introduce Genie, the first generative interactive environment trained in an unsupervised manner from unlabelled Internet videos. The model can be prompted to generate an endless variety of action-controllable virtual worlds described through text, synthetic images, photographs, and even sketches. At 11B parameters, Genie can be considered a foundation world model. It is comprised of a spatiotemporal video tokenizer, an autoregressive dynamics model, and a simple and scalable latent action model. Genie enables users to act in the generated environments on a frame-by-frame basis despite training without any ground-truth action labels or other domain-specific requirements typically found in the world model literature. Further the resulting learned latent action space facilitates training agents to imitate behaviors from unseen videos, opening the path for training generalist agents of the future.

Debating with More Persuasive LLMs Leads to More Truthful Answers

Common methods for aligning large language models (LLMs) with desired behaviour heavily rely on human-labelled data. However, as models grow increasingly sophisticated, they will surpass human expertise, and the role of human evaluation will evolve into non-experts overseeing experts. In anticipation of this, we ask: can weaker models assess the correctness of stronger models? We investigate this question in an analogous setting, where stronger models (experts) possess the necessary information to answer questions and weaker models (non-experts) lack this information. The method we evaluate is \textit{debate}, where two LLM experts each argue for a different answer, and a non-expert selects the answer. We find that debate consistently helps both non-expert models and humans answer questions, achieving 76\% and 88\% accuracy respectively (naive baselines obtain 48\% and 60\%). Furthermore, optimising expert debaters for persuasiveness in an unsupervised manner improves non-expert ability to identify the truth in debates. Our results provide encouraging empirical evidence for the viability of aligning models with debate in the absence of ground truth.

Multi-Agent Diagnostics for Robustness via Illuminated Diversity

In the rapidly advancing field of multi-agent systems, ensuring robustness in unfamiliar and adversarial settings is crucial. Notwithstanding their outstanding performance in familiar environments, these systems often falter in new situations due to overfitting during the training phase. This is especially pronounced in settings where both cooperative and competitive behaviours are present, encapsulating a dual nature of overfitting and generalisation challenges. To address this issue, we present Multi-Agent Diagnostics for Robustness via Illuminated Diversity (MADRID), a novel approach for generating diverse adversarial scenarios that expose strategic vulnerabilities in pre-trained multi-agent policies. Leveraging the concepts from open-ended learning, MADRID navigates the vast space of adversarial settings, employing a target policy's regret to gauge the vulnerabilities of these settings. We evaluate the effectiveness of MADRID on the 11vs11 version of Google Research Football, one of the most complex environments for multi-agent reinforcement learning. Specifically, we employ MADRID for generating a diverse array of adversarial settings for TiZero, the state-of-the-art approach which "masters" the game through 45 days of training on a large-scale distributed infrastructure. We expose key shortcomings in TiZero's tactical decision-making, underlining the crucial importance of rigorous evaluation in multi-agent systems.

Leading the Pack: N-player Opponent Shaping

Reinforcement learning solutions have great success in the 2-player general sum setting. In this setting, the paradigm of Opponent Shaping (OS), in which agents account for the learning of their co-players, has led to agents which are able to avoid collectively bad outcomes, whilst also maximizing their reward. These methods have currently been limited to 2-player game. However, the real world involves interactions with many more agents, with interactions on both local and global scales. In this paper, we extend Opponent Shaping (OS) methods to environments involving multiple co-players and multiple shaping agents. We evaluate on over 4 different environments, varying the number of players from 3 to 5, and demonstrate that model-based OS methods converge to equilibrium with better global welfare than naive learning. However, we find that when playing with a large number of co-players, OS methods' relative performance reduces, suggesting that in the limit OS methods may not perform well. Finally, we explore scenarios where more than one OS method is present, noticing that within games requiring a majority of cooperating agents, OS methods converge to outcomes with poor global welfare.

Scaling Opponent Shaping to High Dimensional Games

In multi-agent settings with mixed incentives, methods developed for zero-sum games have been shown to lead to detrimental outcomes. To address this issue, opponent shaping (OS) methods explicitly learn to influence the learning dynamics of co-players and empirically lead to improved individual and collective outcomes. However, OS methods have only been evaluated in low-dimensional environments due to the challenges associated with estimating higher-order derivatives or scaling model-free meta-learning. Alternative methods that scale to more complex settings either converge to undesirable solutions or rely on unrealistic assumptions about the environment or co-players. In this paper, we successfully scale an OS-based approach to general-sum games with temporally-extended actions and long-time horizons for the first time. After analysing the representations of the meta-state and history used by previous algorithms, we propose a simplified version called Shaper. We show empirically that Shaper leads to improved individual and collective outcomes in a range of challenging settings from literature. We further formalize a technique previously implicit in the literature, and analyse its contribution to opponent shaping. We show empirically that this technique is helpful for the functioning of prior methods in certain environments. Lastly, we show that previous environments, such as the CoinGame, are inadequate for analysing temporally-extended general-sum interactions.