Recently, large language models (LLMs) have achieved superior performance, empowering the development of large multimodal agents (LMAs).

Recently, large language models (LLMs) have achieved superior performance, empowering the development of large multimodal agents (LMAs). An LMA is anticipated to execute practical tasks requires various capabilities including multimodal perception, interaction, reasoning, and decision making. However, existing benchmarks are limited in assessing compositional skills and actions demanded by practical scenarios, where they primarily focused on single tasks and static scenarios. To bridge this gap, we introduce WhodunitBench, a benchmark rooted from murder mystery games, where players are required to utilize the aforementioned skills to achieve their objective (i.e., identifying the `murderer' or hiding themselves), providing a simulated dynamic environment for evaluating LMAs. Specifically, WhodunitBench includes two evaluation modes.

Recently, large language models (LLMs) have achieved superior performance, empowering the development of large multimodal agents (LMAs).

Recently, large language models (LLMs) have achieved superior performance, empowering the development of large multimodal agents (LMAs). An LMA is anticipated to execute practical tasks requires various capabilities including multimodal perception, interaction, reasoning, and decision making. However, existing benchmarks are limited in assessing compositional skills and actions demanded by practical scenarios, where they primarily focused on single tasks and static scenarios. To bridge this gap, we introduce WhodunitBench, a benchmark rooted from murder mystery games, where players are required to utilize the aforementioned skills to achieve their objective (i.e., identifying the murderer' or hiding themselves), providing a simulated dynamic environment for evaluating LMAs. Specifically, WhodunitBench includes two evaluation modes. The first mode, the arena-style evaluation, is constructed from 50 meticulously curated scripts featuring clear reasoning clues and distinct murderers; The second mode, the chain of evaluation, consists of over 3000 curated multiple-choice questions and open-ended questions, aiming to assess every facet of the murder mystery games for LMAs.

We propose PLAYER*, a novel framework that addresses the limitations of existing agent-based approaches built on Large Language Models (LLMs) in handling complex questions and understanding interpersonal relationships in dynamic environments. PLAYER* enhances path planning in Murder Mystery Games (MMGs) using an anytime sampling-based planner and a questioning-driven search framework. By equipping agents with a set of sensors, PLAYER* eliminates the need for pre-defined questions and enables agents to navigate complex social interactions. We additionally make a contribution by introducing a quantifiable evaluation method using multiple-choice questions and present WellPlay, a dataset containing 1,482 question-answer pairs. Experimental results demonstrate PLAYER*'s superiority over existing multi-agent methods, enhancing the generalisability and adaptability of agents in MMGs and paving the way for more effective multi-agent interactions.

In this study, we explore the application of Large Language Models (LLMs) in "Jubensha" (Chinese murder mystery role-playing games), a novel area in AI-driven gaming. We introduce the first Chinese dataset specifically for Jubensha, including character scripts and game rules, to foster AI agent development in this complex narrative environment. Our work also presents a unique multi-agent interaction framework using LLMs, allowing AI agents to autonomously engage in the game, enhancing the dynamics of Jubensha gameplay. To evaluate these AI agents, we developed specialized methods targeting their mastery of case information and reasoning skills. Furthermore, we incorporated the latest advancements in in-context learning to improve the agents' performance in critical aspects like information gathering, murderer detection, and logical reasoning. The experimental results validate the effectiveness of our proposed methods. This work aims to offer a fresh perspective on understanding LLM capabilities and establish a new benchmark for evaluating large language model-based agents to researchers in the field.

ChatGPT has shown its great power in text processing, including its reasoning ability from text reading. However, there has not been any direct comparison between human readers and ChatGPT in reasoning ability related to text reading. This study was undertaken to investigate how ChatGPTs (i.e., ChatGPT and ChatGPT Plus) and Chinese senior school students as ESL learners exhibited their reasoning ability from English narrative texts. Additionally, we compared the two ChatGPTs in the reasoning performances when commands were updated elaborately. The whole study was composed of three reasoning tests: Test 1 for commonsense inference, Test 2 for emotional inference, and Test 3 for causal inference. The results showed that in Test 1, the students outdid the two ChatGPT versions in local-culture-related inferences but performed worse than the chatbots in daily-life inferences. In Test 2, ChatGPT Plus excelled whereas ChatGPT lagged behind in accuracy. In association with both accuracy and frequency of correct responses, the students were inferior to the two chatbots. Compared with ChatGPTs' better performance in positive emotions, the students showed their superiority in inferring negative emotions. In Test 3, the students demonstrated better logical analysis, outdoing both chatbots. In updating command condition, ChatGPT Plus displayed good causal reasoning ability while ChatGPT kept unchanged. Our study reveals that human readers and ChatGPTs have their respective advantages and disadvantages in drawing inferences from text reading comprehension, unlocking a complementary relationship in text-based reasoning.

While large language models (LLMs) equipped with techniques like chain-of-thought prompting have demonstrated impressive capabilities, they still fall short in their ability to reason robustly in complex settings. However, evaluating LLM reasoning is challenging because system capabilities continue to grow while benchmark datasets for tasks like logical deduction have remained static. We introduce MuSR, a dataset for evaluating language models on multistep soft reasoning tasks specified in a natural language narrative. This dataset has two crucial features. First, it is created through a novel neurosymbolic synthetic-to-natural generation algorithm, enabling the construction of complex reasoning instances that challenge GPT-4 (e.g., murder mysteries roughly 1000 words in length) and which can be scaled further as more capable LLMs are released. Second, our dataset instances are free text narratives corresponding to real-world domains of reasoning; this makes it simultaneously much more challenging than other synthetically-crafted benchmarks while remaining realistic and tractable for human annotators to solve with high accuracy. We evaluate a range of LLMs and prompting techniques on this dataset and characterize the gaps that remain for techniques like chain-of-thought to perform robust reasoning.

Most canals that cut through ninth-century Baghdad are a muddy brown, thick with the silt churned up by the poles of passing punts. But there's one inlet in the city where the water is stained red, a persistent crimson cloud that doesn't shift with the stream's eddies. Follow the red-running gutters through the sidestreets shouldered by clay-brick houses, and you'll find not an abattoir but a dye factory. Between lines of fabrics hung up to dry, workers sweat as they stir cloth in great pots of coloured water, occasionally stopping to mop their brows. After a palace burglary goes wrong, you are forced to flee your village and join the Hidden Ones, taking up their fight against the Order, a secretive club who are worming their way into Baghdad's upper echelons of power.

Informal reasoning ability is the ability to reason based on common sense, experience, and intuition.Humans use informal reasoning every day to extract the most influential elements for their decision-making from a large amount of life-like information.With the rapid development of language models, the realization of general artificial intelligence has emerged with hope. Given the outstanding informal reasoning ability of humans, how much informal reasoning ability language models have has not been well studied by scholars.In order to explore the gap between humans and language models in informal reasoning ability, this paper constructs a Detective Reasoning Benchmark, which is an assembly of 1,200 questions gathered from accessible online resources, aims at evaluating the model's informal reasoning ability in real-life context.Considering the improvement of the model's informal reasoning ability restricted by the lack of benchmark, we further propose a Self-Question Prompt Framework that mimics human thinking to enhance the model's informal reasoning ability.The goals of self-question are to find key elements, deeply investigate the connections between these elements, encourage the relationship between each element and the problem, and finally, require the model to reasonably answer the problem.The experimental results show that human performance greatly outperforms the SoTA Language Models in Detective Reasoning Benchmark.Besides, Self-Question is proven to be the most effective prompt engineering in improving GPT-4's informal reasoning ability, but it still does not even surpass the lowest score made by human participants.Upon acceptance of the paper, the source code for the benchmark will be made publicly accessible.