Shuoyoucheng Ma

Zhenhua Wang, Wei Xie, Baosheng Wang et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have gradually become the gateway for people to acquire new knowledge. However, attackers can break the model's security protection ("jail") to access restricted information, which is called "jailbreaking." Previous studies have shown the weakness of current LLMs when confronted with such jailbreaking attacks. Nevertheless, comprehension of the intrinsic decision-making mechanism within the LLMs upon receipt of jailbreak prompts is noticeably lacking. Our research provides a psychological explanation of the jailbreak prompts. Drawing on cognitive consistency theory, we argue that the key to jailbreak is guiding the LLM to achieve cognitive coordination in an erroneous direction. Further, we propose an automatic black-box jailbreaking method based on the Foot-in-the-Door (FITD) technique. This method progressively induces the model to answer harmful questions via multi-step incremental prompts. We instantiated a prototype system to evaluate the jailbreaking effectiveness on 8 advanced LLMs, yielding an average success rate of 83.9%. This study builds a psychological perspective on the explanatory insights into the intrinsic decision-making logic of LLMs.

Wei Xie, Shuoyoucheng Ma, Zhenhua Wang et al.

The cognitive mechanism by which Large Language Models (LLMs) solve mathematical problems remains a widely debated and unresolved issue. Currently, there is little interpretable experimental evidence that connects LLMs' problem-solving with human cognitive psychology.To determine if LLMs possess human-like mathematical reasoning, we modified the problems used in the human Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT). Our results show that, even with the use of Chains of Thought (CoT) prompts, mainstream LLMs, including the latest o1 model (noted for its reasoning capabilities), have a high error rate when solving these modified CRT problems. Specifically, the average accuracy rate dropped by up to 50% compared to the original questions.Further analysis of LLMs' incorrect answers suggests that they primarily rely on pattern matching from their training data, which aligns more with human intuition (System 1 thinking) rather than with human-like reasoning (System 2 thinking). This finding challenges the belief that LLMs have genuine mathematical reasoning abilities comparable to humans. As a result, this work may adjust overly optimistic views on LLMs' progress towards artificial general intelligence.

Jingao Xu, Shuoyoucheng Ma, Xin Song et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) as interactive agents show significant promise in Knowledge Graph Question Answering (KGQA) but often struggle with the semantic gap between natural language queries and structured knowledge graph (KG) representations. This leads to suboptimal planning and inefficient exploration on KG, while training-free approaches often underutilize valuable reasoning patterns in training data. To address these limitations, we propose a novel framework, Exemplar-Guided Planning (EGP), which enhances the planning capabilities of LLM agents for KGQA. EGP first preprocesses the training set questions via entity templating to normalize semantic variations. It then retrieves highly similar exemplary questions and their successful reasoning paths from this preprocessed set using semantic embeddings and an efficient FAISS index. These retrieved exemplars dynamically guide the LLM's planning process in two key phases: (1) Task Decomposition, by aligning generated sub-objectives with proven reasoning steps, and (2) Relation Exploration, by providing high-quality auxiliary information to improve relation pruning accuracy. Additionally, we introduce a Smart Lookahead mechanism during relation exploration to improve efficiency by preemptively exploring promising paths and potentially terminating exploration earlier. We apply EGP to the Plan-on-Graph (PoG) framework, termed PoG-EGP. Extensive experiments on two real-world KGQA datasets, WebQSP and CWQ, demonstrate that PoG-EGP significantly improves over the baseline PoG system and other compared methods.

Wei Xie, Shuoyoucheng Ma, Zhenhua Wang et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) with hundreds of billions of parameters have exhibited human-like intelligence by learning from vast amounts of internet-scale data. However, the uninterpretability of large-scale neural networks raises concerns about the reliability of LLM. Studies have attempted to assess the psychometric properties of LLMs by borrowing concepts from human psychology to enhance their interpretability, but they fail to account for the fundamental differences between LLMs and humans. This results in high rejection rates when human scales are reused directly. Furthermore, these scales do not support the measurement of LLM psychological property variations in different languages. This paper introduces AIPsychoBench, a specialized benchmark tailored to assess the psychological properties of LLM. It uses a lightweight role-playing prompt to bypass LLM alignment, improving the average effective response rate from 70.12% to 90.40%. Meanwhile, the average biases are only 3.3% (positive) and 2.1% (negative), which are significantly lower than the biases of 9.8% and 6.9%, respectively, caused by traditional jailbreak prompts. Furthermore, among the total of 112 psychometric subcategories, the score deviations for seven languages compared to English ranged from 5% to 20.2% in 43 subcategories, providing the first comprehensive evidence of the linguistic impact on the psychometrics of LLM.

Qianhong Guo, Wei Xie, Xiaofang Cai et al.

Although large language models (LLMs) demonstrate remarkable capabilities across various tasks, evaluating their capabilities remains a challenging task. Existing evaluation methods suffer from issues such as data contamination, black-box operation, and subjective preference. These issues make it difficult to evaluate the LLMs' true capabilities comprehensively. To tackle these challenges, we propose a novel benchmark-free evaluation paradigm, LLM-Crowdsourced. It utilizes LLMs to generate questions, answer independently, and evaluate mutually. This method integrates four key evaluation criteria: dynamic, transparent, objective, and professional, which existing evaluation methods cannot satisfy simultaneously. Experiments on eight mainstream LLMs across mathematics and programming verify the advantages of our method in distinguishing LLM performance. Furthermore, our study reveals several novel findings that are difficult for traditional methods to detect, including but not limited to: (1) Gemini demonstrates the highest original and professional question-design capabilities among others; (2) Some LLMs exhibit ''memorization-based answering'' by misrecognizing questions as familiar ones with a similar structure; (3) LLM evaluation results demonstrate high consistency (robustness).