RuleArena: A Benchmark for Rule-Guided Reasoning with LLMs in Real-World Scenarios

This paper introduces RuleArena, a novel and challenging benchmark designed to evaluate the ability of large language models (LLMs) to follow complex, real-world rules in reasoning. Covering three practical domains -- airline baggage fees, NBA transactions, and tax regulations -- RuleArena assesses LLMs' proficiency in handling intricate natural language instructions that demand long-context understanding, logical reasoning, and accurate mathematical computation. Two key attributes distinguish RuleArena from traditional rule-based reasoning benchmarks: (1) it extends beyond standard first-order logic representations, and (2) it is grounded in authentic, practical scenarios, providing insights into the suitability and reliability of LLMs for real-world applications. Our findings reveal several notable limitations in LLMs: (1) they struggle to identify and apply the appropriate rules, frequently becoming confused by similar but distinct regulations, (2) they cannot consistently perform accurate mathematical computations, even when they correctly identify the relevant rules, and (3) in general, they perform poorly in the benchmark. These results highlight significant challenges in advancing LLMs' rule-guided reasoning capabilities in real-life applications.

Disentangling Memory and Reasoning Ability in Large Language Models

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong performance in handling complex tasks requiring both extensive knowledge and reasoning abilities. However, the existing LLM inference pipeline operates as an opaque process without explicit separation between knowledge retrieval and reasoning steps, making the model's decision-making process unclear and disorganized. This ambiguity can lead to issues such as hallucinations and knowledge forgetting, which significantly impact the reliability of LLMs in high-stakes domains. In this paper, we propose a new inference paradigm that decomposes the complex inference process into two distinct and clear actions: (1) memory recall: which retrieves relevant knowledge, and (2) reasoning: which performs logical steps based on the recalled knowledge. To facilitate this decomposition, we introduce two special tokens memory and reason, guiding the model to distinguish between steps that require knowledge retrieval and those that involve reasoning. Our experiment results show that this decomposition not only improves model performance but also enhances the interpretability of the inference process, enabling users to identify sources of error and refine model responses effectively. The code is available at https://github.com/MingyuJ666/Disentangling-Memory-and-Reasoning.

Game-theoretic LLM: Agent Workflow for Negotiation Games

This paper investigates the rationality of large language models (LLMs) in strategic decision-making contexts, specifically within the framework of game theory. We evaluate several state-of-the-art LLMs across a spectrum of complete-information and incomplete-information games. Our findings reveal that LLMs frequently deviate from rational strategies, particularly as the complexity of the game increases with larger payoff matrices or deeper sequential trees. To address these limitations, we design multiple game-theoretic workflows that guide the reasoning and decision-making processes of LLMs. These workflows aim to enhance the models' ability to compute Nash Equilibria and make rational choices, even under conditions of uncertainty and incomplete information. Experimental results demonstrate that the adoption of these workflows significantly improves the rationality and robustness of LLMs in game-theoretic tasks. Specifically, with the workflow, LLMs exhibit marked improvements in identifying optimal strategies, achieving near-optimal allocations in negotiation scenarios, and reducing susceptibility to exploitation during negotiations. Furthermore, we explore the meta-strategic considerations of whether it is rational for agents to adopt such workflows, recognizing that the decision to use or forgo the workflow constitutes a game-theoretic issue in itself. Our research contributes to a deeper understanding of LLMs' decision-making capabilities in strategic contexts and provides insights into enhancing their rationality through structured workflows. The findings have implications for the development of more robust and strategically sound AI agents capable of navigating complex interactive environments. Code and data supporting this study are available at \url{https://github.com/Wenyueh/game_theory}.

AIPatient: Simulating Patients with EHRs and LLM Powered Agentic Workflow

Simulated patient systems play a crucial role in modern medical education and research, providing safe, integrative learning environments and enabling clinical decision-making simulations. Large Language Models (LLM) could advance simulated patient systems by replicating medical conditions and patient-doctor interactions with high fidelity and low cost. However, ensuring the effectiveness and trustworthiness of these systems remains a challenge, as they require a large, diverse, and precise patient knowledgebase, along with a robust and stable knowledge diffusion to users. Here, we developed AIPatient, an advanced simulated patient system with AIPatient Knowledge Graph (AIPatient KG) as the input and the Reasoning Retrieval-Augmented Generation (Reasoning RAG) agentic workflow as the generation backbone. AIPatient KG samples data from Electronic Health Records (EHRs) in the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care (MIMIC)-III database, producing a clinically diverse and relevant cohort of 1,495 patients with high knowledgebase validity (F1 0.89). Reasoning RAG leverages six LLM powered agents spanning tasks including retrieval, KG query generation, abstraction, checker, rewrite, and summarization. This agentic framework reaches an overall accuracy of 94.15% in EHR-based medical Question Answering (QA), outperforming benchmarks that use either no agent or only partial agent integration. Our system also presents high readability (median Flesch Reading Ease 77.23; median Flesch Kincaid Grade 5.6), robustness (ANOVA F-value 0.6126, p<0.1), and stability (ANOVA F-value 0.782, p<0.1). The promising performance of the AIPatient system highlights its potential to support a wide range of applications, including medical education, model evaluation, and system integration.

Uncertainty is Fragile: Manipulating Uncertainty in Large Language Models

Large Language Models (LLMs) are employed across various high-stakes domains, where the reliability of their outputs is crucial. One commonly used method to assess the reliability of LLMs' responses is uncertainty estimation, which gauges the likelihood of their answers being correct. While many studies focus on improving the accuracy of uncertainty estimations for LLMs, our research investigates the fragility of uncertainty estimation and explores potential attacks. We demonstrate that an attacker can embed a backdoor in LLMs, which, when activated by a specific trigger in the input, manipulates the model's uncertainty without affecting the final output. Specifically, the proposed backdoor attack method can alter an LLM's output probability distribution, causing the probability distribution to converge towards an attacker-predefined distribution while ensuring that the top-1 prediction remains unchanged. Our experimental results demonstrate that this attack effectively undermines the model's self-evaluation reliability in multiple-choice questions. For instance, we achieved a 100 attack success rate (ASR) across three different triggering strategies in four models. Further, we investigate whether this manipulation generalizes across different prompts and domains. This work highlights a significant threat to the reliability of LLMs and underscores the need for future defenses against such attacks. The code is available at https://github.com/qcznlp/uncertainty_attack.

MultiAgent Collaboration Attack: Investigating Adversarial Attacks in Large Language Model Collaborations via Debate

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.

MoralBench: Moral Evaluation of LLMs

In the rapidly evolving field of artificial intelligence, large language models (LLMs) have emerged as powerful tools for a myriad of applications, from natural language processing to decision-making support systems. However, as these models become increasingly integrated into societal frameworks, the imperative to ensure they operate within ethical and moral boundaries has never been more critical. This paper introduces a novel benchmark designed to measure and compare the moral reasoning capabilities of LLMs. We present the first comprehensive dataset specifically curated to probe the moral dimensions of LLM outputs, addressing a wide range of ethical dilemmas and scenarios reflective of real-world complexities. The main contribution of this work lies in the development of benchmark datasets and metrics for assessing the moral identity of LLMs, which accounts for nuance, contextual sensitivity, and alignment with human ethical standards. Our methodology involves a multi-faceted approach, combining quantitative analysis with qualitative insights from ethics scholars to ensure a thorough evaluation of model performance. By applying our benchmark across several leading LLMs, we uncover significant variations in moral reasoning capabilities of different models. These findings highlight the importance of considering moral reasoning in the development and evaluation of LLMs, as well as the need for ongoing research to address the biases and limitations uncovered in our study. We publicly release the benchmark at https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/1k93YZJserYc2CkqP8d4B3M3sgd3kA8W7 and also open-source the code of the project at https://github.com/agiresearch/MoralBench.

Disentangling Logic: The Role of Context in Large Language Model Reasoning Capabilities

This study intends to systematically disentangle pure logic reasoning and text understanding by investigating the contrast across abstract and contextualized logical problems from a comprehensive set of domains. We explore whether LLMs demonstrate genuine reasoning capabilities across various domains when the underlying logical structure remains constant. We focus on two main questions (1) Can abstract logical problems alone accurately benchmark an LLM's reasoning ability in real-world scenarios, disentangled from contextual support in practical settings? (2) Does fine-tuning LLMs on abstract logic problem generalize to contextualized logic problems and vice versa? To investigate these questions, we focus on standard propositional logic, specifically propositional deductive and abductive logic reasoning. In particular, we construct instantiated datasets for deductive and abductive reasoning with 4 levels of difficulty, encompassing 12 distinct categories or domains based on the categorization of Wikipedia. Our experiments aim to provide insights into disentangling context in logical reasoning and the true reasoning capabilities of LLMs and their generalization potential. The code and dataset are available at: https://github.com/agiresearch/ContextHub.

BattleAgent: Multi-modal Dynamic Emulation on Historical Battles to Complement Historical Analysis

This paper presents BattleAgent, an emulation system that combines the Large Vision-Language Model and Multi-agent System. This novel system aims to simulate complex dynamic interactions among multiple agents, as well as between agents and their environments, over a period of time. It emulates both the decision-making processes of leaders and the viewpoints of ordinary participants, such as soldiers. 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 while offering insights into the thoughts and feelings of individuals from diverse viewpoints. The technological foundations of BattleAgent establish detailed and immersive settings for historical battles, enabling individual agents to partake in, observe, and dynamically respond to evolving battle scenarios. This methodology holds the potential to substantially deepen our understanding of historical events, particularly through individual accounts. Such initiatives can also aid historical research, as conventional historical narratives often lack documentation and prioritize the perspectives of decision-makers, thereby overlooking the experiences of ordinary individuals. BattelAgent illustrates AI's potential to revitalize the human aspect in crucial social events, thereby fostering a more nuanced collective understanding and driving the progressive development of human society.

Exploring Concept Depth: How Large Language Models Acquire Knowledge at Different Layers?

This paper studies the phenomenon that different concepts are learned in different layers of large language models, i.e. more difficult concepts are fully acquired with deeper layers. We define the difficulty of concepts by the level of abstraction, and here it is crudely categorized by factual, emotional, and inferential. Each category contains a spectrum of tasks, arranged from simple to complex. For example, within the factual dimension, tasks range from lie detection to categorizing mathematical problems. We employ a probing technique to extract representations from different layers of the model and apply these to classification tasks. Our findings reveal that models tend to efficiently classify simpler tasks, indicating that these concepts are learned in shallower layers. Conversely, more complex tasks may only be discernible at deeper layers, if at all. This paper explores the implications of these findings for our understanding of model learning processes and internal representations. Our implementation is available at \url{https://github.com/Luckfort/CD}.