Lang Gao

Zixiang Xu, Yanbo Wang, Yue Huang et al.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to socially grounded tasks, such as online community moderation, media content analysis, and social reasoning games. Success in these contexts depends on a model's social reasoning ability - the capacity to interpret social contexts, infer others' mental states, and assess the truthfulness of presented information. However, there is currently no systematic evaluation framework that comprehensively assesses the social reasoning capabilities of LLMs. Existing efforts often oversimplify real-world scenarios and consist of tasks that are too basic to challenge advanced models. To address this gap, we introduce SocialMaze, a new benchmark specifically designed to evaluate social reasoning. SocialMaze systematically incorporates three core challenges: deep reasoning, dynamic interaction, and information uncertainty. It provides six diverse tasks across three key settings: social reasoning games, daily-life interactions, and digital community platforms. Both automated and human validation are used to ensure data quality. Our evaluation reveals several key insights: models vary substantially in their ability to handle dynamic interactions and integrate temporally evolving information; models with strong chain-of-thought reasoning perform better on tasks requiring deeper inference beyond surface-level cues; and model reasoning degrades significantly under uncertainty. Furthermore, we show that targeted fine-tuning on curated reasoning examples can greatly improve model performance in complex social scenarios. The dataset is publicly available at: https://huggingface.co/datasets/MBZUAI/SocialMaze

Lang Gao, Jiahui Geng, Xiangliang Zhang et al.

Jailbreaking in Large Language Models (LLMs) is a major security concern as it can deceive LLMs to generate harmful text. Yet, there is still insufficient understanding of how jailbreaking works, which makes it hard to develop effective defense strategies. We aim to shed more light into this issue: we conduct a detailed large-scale analysis of seven different jailbreak methods and find that these disagreements stem from insufficient observation samples. In particular, we introduce \textit{safety boundary}, and we find that jailbreaks shift harmful activations outside that safety boundary, where LLMs are less sensitive to harmful information. We also find that the low and the middle layers are critical in such shifts, while deeper layers have less impact. Leveraging on these insights, we propose a novel defense called \textbf{Activation Boundary Defense} (ABD), which adaptively constrains the activations within the safety boundary. We further use Bayesian optimization to selectively apply the defense method to the low and the middle layers. Our experiments on several benchmarks show that ABD achieves an average DSR of over 98\% against various forms of jailbreak attacks, with less than 2\% impact on the model's general capabilities.

Zirui Song, Yuan Huang, Junchang Liu et al.

Social deduction games like Werewolf combine language, reasoning, and strategy, providing a testbed for studying natural language and social intelligence. However, most studies reduce the game to LLM-based self-play, yielding templated utterances and anecdotal cases that overlook the richness of social gameplay. Evaluation further relies on coarse metrics such as survival time or subjective scoring due to the lack of quality reference data. To address these gaps, we curate a high-quality, human-verified multimodal Werewolf dataset containing over 100 hours of video, 32.4M utterance tokens, and 15 rule variants. Based on this dataset, we propose a novel strategy-alignment evaluation that leverages the winning faction's strategies as ground truth in two stages: 1) Speech evaluation, formulated as multiple-choice-style tasks that assess whether the model can adopt appropriate stances across five dimensions of social ability; and 2) Decision evaluation, which assesses the model's voting choices and opponent-role inferences. This framework enables a fine-grained evaluation of models' linguistic and reasoning capabilities, while capturing their ability to generate strategically coherent gameplay. Our experiments show that state-of-the-art LLMs show diverse performance, with roughly half remain below 0.50, revealing clear gaps in deception and counterfactual reasoning. We hope our dataset further inspires research on language, reasoning, and strategy in multi-agent interaction.