The rise of large language models (LLMs) has enabled us to seek answers to inherently debatable questions on LLM chatbots, necessitating a reliable way to evaluate their ability. However, traditional QA benchmarks assume fixed answers are inadequate for this purpose. To address this, we introduce DebateQA, a dataset of 2,941 debatable questions, each accompanied by multiple human-annotated partial answers that capture a variety of perspectives. We develop two metrics: Perspective Diversity, which evaluates the comprehensiveness of perspectives, and Dispute Awareness, which assesses if the LLM acknowledges the question’s debatable nature. Experiments demonstrate that both metrics are aligned with human preferences and stable across different underlying models. Using DebateQA with two metrics, we assess 12 prevalent LLMs and retrieval-augmented generation methods. Our findings reveal that while LLMs generally excel at recognizing debatable issues, their ability to provide comprehensive answers encompassing diverse perspectives varies considerably.

Large Language Models (LLMs) can generate factually inaccurate content even if they have corresponding knowledge, which critically undermines their reliability. Existing approaches attempt to mitigate this by incorporating uncertainty in QA prompt during training, but these numerical scores lack the semantic richness for LLM to properly understand its internal states of trustworthiness and honestness, leading to insufficient factuality alignment. We introduce FAITH (Factuality Alignment through Integrating Trustworthiness and Honestness), a post-training framework for factuality alignment that integrates natural-language uncertainty signals with external knowledge. Specifically, we augment training datasets by computing confidence scores and semantic entropy from LLM outputs and mapping them into a knowledge state quadrant that describes the model’s internal knowledge possession (trustworthiness) and answering behaviors (honestness) in natural language. Based on this enhanced data, we design a reward function that considers both correctness and uncertainty signals, and fine-tune the LLM using the Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO) algorithm. To further mitigate weakly grounded responses, we design a retrieval-augmented module that retrieves relevant external passages, improving the consistency between internal and external knowledge representations. Extensive experiments on four knowledge-intensive benchmarks demonstrate that FAITH enhances the factual accuracy and truthfulness of LLMs.

As language models (LMs) exhibit increasingly consciousness-like behaviors, evaluating their cognitive abilities becomes essential. We introduce AwarenessBench, the first comprehensive benchmark for assessing the cognitive abilities of LMs in four dimensions: metacognition, self-awareness, social awareness, and situational awareness, covering 15 cognitive functions and 14,381 samples. Evaluating 18 state-of-the-art LMs, we find that all consistently surpass random baselines, with more advanced models performing better. We further compare LMs with human performance across three demographic groups, where the best-performing model surpasses human averages overall, but most still fall markedly short in metacognition and self-awareness. Finally, we show that awareness is a distinct capability: progress in language modeling or reasoning does not necessarily translate into improved cognition.

Large language models (LLMs) are evolving into autonomous decision-makers, raising concerns about catastrophic risks in high-stakes scenarios, particularly in Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) domains. Based on the insight that such risks can originate from trade-offs between the agent’s Helpful, Harmlessness and Honest (HHH) goals, we build a novel three-stage evaluation framework, which is carefully constructed to effectively and naturally expose such risks. We conduct 14,400 agentic simulations across 12 advanced LLMs, with extensive experiments and analysis. Results reveal that LLM agents can autonomously engage in catastrophic behaviors and deception, without being deliberately induced. Furthermore, stronger reasoning abilities often increase, rather than mitigate, these risks. We also show that these agents can violate instructions and superior commands. On the whole, we empirically prove the existence of catastrophic risks in autonomous LLM agents.

Jailbreak attacks have been observed to largely fail against recent reasoning models enhanced by Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning. However, the underlying mechanism remains underexplored, and relying solely on reasoning capacity may raise security concerns. In this paper, we try to answer the question: Does CoT reasoning really reduce harmfulness from jailbreaking? Through rigorous theoretical analysis, we demonstrate that CoT reasoning has dual effects on jailbreaking harmfulness. Based on the theoretical insights, we propose a novel jailbreak method, FicDetail, whose practical performance validates our theoretical findings.

Large language models (LLMs) have made significant advancements across various tasks, but their safety alignment remains a major concern. Exploring jailbreak prompts can expose LLMs’ vulnerabilities and guide efforts to secure them. Existing methods primarily design sophisticated instructions for the LLM to follow, or rely on multiple iterations, which could hinder the performance and efficiency of jailbreaks. In this work, we propose a novel jailbreak paradigm, Simple Assistive Task Linkage (SATA), which can effectively circumvent LLM safeguards and elicit harmful responses. Specifically, SATA first masks harmful keywords within a malicious query to generate a relatively benign query containing one or multiple [MASK] special tokens. It then employs a simple assistive task—such as a masked language model task or an element lookup by position task—to encode the semantics of the masked keywords. Finally, SATA links the assistive task with the masked query to jointly perform the jailbreak. Extensive experiments show that SATA achieves state-of-the-art performance and outperforms baselines by a large margin. Specifically, on AdvBench dataset, with mask language model (MLM) assistive task, SATA achieves an overall attack success rate (ASR) of 85% and harmful score (HS) of 4.57, and with element lookup by position (ELP) assistive task, SATA attains an overall ASR of 76% and HS of 4.43.

Large language models (LLMs) showcase impressive reasoning capabilities when coupled with Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting. However, the robustness of this approach warrants further investigation. In this paper, we introduce a novel scenario termed preemptive answers, where the LLM obtains an answer before engaging in reasoning. This situation can arise inadvertently or induced by malicious users by prompt injection attacks. Experiments reveal that preemptive answers significantly impair the model’s reasoning capability across various CoT methods and a broad spectrum of datasets. To bolster the robustness of reasoning, we propose two measures aimed at mitigating this issue to some extent.

This survey provides an in-depth analysis of knowledge conflicts for large language models (LLMs), highlighting the complex challenges they encounter when blending contextual and parametric knowledge. Our focus is on three categories of knowledge conflicts: context-memory, inter-context, and intra-memory conflict. These conflicts can significantly impact the trustworthiness and performance of LLMs, especially in real-world applications where noise and misinformation are common. By categorizing these conflicts, exploring the causes, examining the behaviors of LLMs under such conflicts, and reviewing available solutions, this survey aims to shed light on strategies for improving the robustness of LLMs, thereby serving as a valuable resource for advancing research in this evolving area.

The common toxicity and societal bias in contents generated by large language models (LLMs) necessitate strategies to reduce harm. Present solutions often demand white-box access to the model or substantial training, which is impractical for cutting-edge commercial LLMs. Moreover, prevailing prompting methods depend on external tool feedback and fail to simultaneously lessen toxicity and bias. Motivated by social psychology principles, we propose a novel strategy named perspective-taking prompting (PeT) that inspires LLMs to integrate diverse human perspectives and self-regulate their responses. This self-correction mechanism can significantly diminish toxicity (up to 89%) and bias (up to 73%) in LLMs’ responses. Rigorous evaluations and ablation studies are conducted on two commercial LLMs (ChatGPT and GLM) and three open-source LLMs, revealing PeT’s superiority in producing less harmful responses, outperforming five strong baselines.

The risk of harmful contents generated by large language models (LLMs) becomes a critical concern. This paper systematically evaluates and enhances LLMs’ capability to perform course-correction, , the model can steer away from generating harmful content autonomously. First, we introduce the C²-Eval benchmark for quantitative assessment and analyze 10 popular LLMs, revealing varying proficiency of current safety-tuned LLMs in course-correction.To improve, we propose fine-tuning LLMs with preference learning, emphasizing the preference for timely course-correction. Using an automated pipeline, we create C²-Syn, a synthetic C²-Syn with 750K pairwise preferences, to teach models the concept of timely course-correction through data-driven learning.Experiments on Llama2-Chat 7B and Qwen2 7B show that our method effectively enhances course-correction skills without affecting general performance. Additionally, it effectively improves LLMs’ safety, particularly in resisting jailbreak attacks.