Daily Papers

Multi-Agent Debate has emerged as a promising framework for improving the reasoning quality of large language models through iterative inter-agent communication. However, broadcasting all agent messages at every round introduces noise and redundancy that can degrade debate quality and waste computational resources. Current approaches rely on uncertainty estimation to filter low-confidence responses before broadcasting, but this approach is unreliable due to miscalibrated confidence scores and sensitivity to threshold selection. To address this, we propose Diversity-Aware Retention (DAR), a lightweight debate framework that, at each debate round, selects the subset of agent responses that maximally disagree with each other and with the majority vote before broadcasting. Through an explicit index-based retention mechanism, DAR preserves the original messages without modification, ensuring that retained disagreements remain authentic. Experiments on diverse reasoning and question answering benchmarks demonstrate that our selective message propagation consistently improves debate performance, particularly as the number of agents scales, where noise accumulation is most severe. Our results highlight that what agents hear is as important as what agents say in multi-agent reasoning systems. Code is publicly available at https://github.com/DA2I2-SLM/DAR.

Generative Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance across a wide range of tasks. Recent research has introduced Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) systems, which leverage multiple LLMs to simulate human debate and thereby improve task performance. However, while some LLMs may possess superior knowledge or reasoning capabilities for specific tasks, they often struggle to clearly communicate this advantage during debates, in part due to a lack of confidence expression. Moreover, inappropriate confidence expression can cause agents in MAD systems to either stubbornly maintain incorrect beliefs or converge prematurely on suboptimal answers, ultimately reducing debate effectiveness and overall system performance. To address these challenges, we propose incorporating confidence expression into MAD systems to allow LLMs to explicitly communicate their confidence levels. To validate this approach, we develop ConfMAD, a MAD framework that integrates confidence expression throughout the debate process. Experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of our method, and we further analyze how confidence influences debate dynamics, offering insights into the design of confidence-aware MAD systems.

As AI systems are used to answer more difficult questions and potentially help create new knowledge, judging the truthfulness of their outputs becomes more difficult and more important. How can we supervise unreliable experts, which have access to the truth but may not accurately report it, to give answers that are systematically true and don't just superficially seem true, when the supervisor can't tell the difference between the two on their own? In this work, we show that debate between two unreliable experts can help a non-expert judge more reliably identify the truth. We collect a dataset of human-written debates on hard reading comprehension questions where the judge has not read the source passage, only ever seeing expert arguments and short quotes selectively revealed by 'expert' debaters who have access to the passage. In our debates, one expert argues for the correct answer, and the other for an incorrect answer. Comparing debate to a baseline we call consultancy, where a single expert argues for only one answer which is correct half of the time, we find that debate performs significantly better, with 84% judge accuracy compared to consultancy's 74%. Debates are also more efficient, being 68% of the length of consultancies. By comparing human to AI debaters, we find evidence that with more skilled (in this case, human) debaters, the performance of debate goes up but the performance of consultancy goes down. Our error analysis also supports this trend, with 46% of errors in human debate attributable to mistakes by the honest debater (which should go away with increased skill); whereas 52% of errors in human consultancy are due to debaters obfuscating the relevant evidence from the judge (which should become worse with increased skill). Overall, these results show that debate is a promising approach for supervising increasingly capable but potentially unreliable AI systems.

Multi-Agent Debate~(MAD) has emerged as a promising paradigm for improving the performance of large language models through collaborative reasoning. Despite recent advances, the key factors driving MAD's effectiveness remain unclear. In this work, we disentangle MAD into two key components--Majority Voting and inter-agent Debate--and assess their respective contributions. Through extensive experiments across seven NLP benchmarks, we find that Majority Voting alone accounts for most of the performance gains typically attributed to MAD. To explain this, we propose a theoretical framework that models debate as a stochastic process. We prove that it induces a martingale over agents' belief trajectories, implying that debate alone does not improve expected correctness. Guided by these insights, we demonstrate that targeted interventions, by biasing the belief update toward correction, can meaningfully enhance debate effectiveness. Overall, our findings suggest that while MAD has potential, simple ensembling methods remain strong and more reliable alternatives in many practical settings. Code is released in https://github.com/deeplearning-wisc/debate-or-vote.

Claim verification is critical for enhancing digital literacy. However, the state-of-the-art single-LLM methods struggle with complex claim verification that involves multi-faceted evidences. Inspired by real-world fact-checking practices, we propose DebateCV, the first claim verification framework that adopts a debate-driven methodology using multiple LLM agents. In our framework, two Debaters take opposing stances on a claim and engage in multi-round argumentation, while a Moderator evaluates the arguments and renders a verdict with justifications. To further improve the performance of the Moderator, we introduce a novel post-training strategy that leverages synthetic debate data generated by the zero-shot DebateCV, effectively addressing the scarcity of real-world debate-driven claim verification data. Experimental results show that our method outperforms existing claim verification methods under varying levels of evidence quality. Our code and dataset are publicly available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/DebateCV-6781.

Debate is the process of exchanging viewpoints or convincing others on a particular issue. Recent research has provided empirical evidence that the persuasiveness of an argument is determined not only by language usage but also by communicator characteristics. Researchers have paid much attention to aspects of languages, such as linguistic features and discourse structures, but combining argument persuasiveness and impact with the social personae of the audience has not been explored due to the difficulty and complexity. We have observed the impressive simulation and personification capability of ChatGPT, indicating a giant pre-trained language model may function as an individual to provide personae and exert unique influences based on diverse background knowledge. Therefore, we propose a persona knowledge-aligned framework for argument quality assessment tasks from the audience side. This is the first work that leverages the emergence of ChatGPT and injects such audience personae knowledge into smaller language models via prompt tuning. The performance of our pipeline demonstrates significant and consistent improvement compared to competitive architectures.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong potential and impressive performance in automating the generation and optimization of workflows. However, existing approaches are marked by limited reasoning capabilities, high computational demands, and significant resource requirements. To address these issues, we propose DebFlow, a framework that employs a debate mechanism to optimize workflows and integrates reflexion to improve based on previous experiences. We evaluated our method across six benchmark datasets, including HotpotQA, MATH, and ALFWorld. Our approach achieved a 3\% average performance improvement over the latest baselines, demonstrating its effectiveness in diverse problem domains. In particular, during training, our framework reduces resource consumption by 37\% compared to the state-of-the-art baselines. Additionally, we performed ablation studies. Removing the Debate component resulted in a 4\% performance drop across two benchmark datasets, significantly greater than the 2\% drop observed when the Reflection component was removed. These findings strongly demonstrate the critical role of Debate in enhancing framework performance, while also highlighting the auxiliary contribution of reflexion to overall optimization.

Closed large language models (LLMs) such as GPT-4 have set state-of-the-art results across a number of NLP tasks and have become central to NLP and machine learning (ML)-driven solutions. Closed LLMs' performance and wide adoption has sparked considerable debate about their accessibility in terms of availability, cost, and transparency. In this study, we perform a rigorous comparative analysis of nine leading LLMs, spanning closed, open, and open-source LLM ecosystems, across text assessment and generation tasks related to automated essay scoring. Our findings reveal that for few-shot learning-based assessment of human generated essays, open LLMs such as Llama 3 and Qwen2.5 perform comparably to GPT-4 in terms of predictive performance, with no significant differences in disparate impact scores when considering age- or race-related fairness. Moreover, Llama 3 offers a substantial cost advantage, being up to 37 times more cost-efficient than GPT-4. For generative tasks, we find that essays generated by top open LLMs are comparable to closed LLMs in terms of their semantic composition/embeddings and ML assessed scores. Our findings challenge the dominance of closed LLMs and highlight the democratizing potential of open LLMs, suggesting they can effectively bridge accessibility divides while maintaining competitive performance and fairness.

Large language models (LLMs) excel in natural language generation but often confidently produce incorrect responses, especially in tasks like mathematical reasoning. Chain-of-thought prompting, self-verification, and multi-agent debate are among the strategies proposed to improve the reasoning and factual accuracy of LLMs. Building on Du et al.'s multi-agent debate framework, we find that multi-agent debate helps at any model scale, and that diversity of thought elicits stronger reasoning in debating LLMs. Across various model sizes, performance on mathematical reasoning tasks benefits most when diverse trained models are used. Remarkably, after 4 rounds of debate, a diverse set of medium-capacity models (Gemini-Pro, Mixtral 7BX8, and PaLM 2-M) outperforms GPT-4 on the GSM-8K benchmark, scoring 91% accuracy. By comparison, when 3 instances of Gemini-Pro are used, performance only reaches 82%. Finally, this diverse set of medium-capacity models sets a new state-of-the-art performance on the ASDiv benchmark (94%). These results underscore the idea that the future of AI is agentic, with diverse cooperating agents yielding emergent capabilities beyond even the most powerful individual models.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are rapidly evolving and impacting various fields, necessitating the development of effective methods to evaluate and compare their performance. Most current approaches for performance evaluation are either based on fixed, domain-specific questions that lack the flexibility required in many real-world applications, or rely on human input, making them unscalable. To address these issues, we propose an automated benchmarking framework based on debates between LLMs, judged by another LLM. This method assesses not only domain knowledge, but also skills such as argumentative reasoning and inconsistency recognition. We evaluate the performance of various state-of-the-art LLMs using the debate framework and achieve rankings that align closely with popular rankings based on human input, eliminating the need for costly human crowdsourcing.

As natural language generation (NLG) models have become prevalent, systematically assessing the quality of machine-generated texts has become increasingly important. Recent studies introduce LLM-based evaluators that operate as reference-free metrics, demonstrating their capability to adeptly handle novel tasks. However, these models generally rely on a single-agent approach, which, we argue, introduces an inherent limit to their performance. This is because there exist biases in LLM agent's responses, including preferences for certain text structure or content. In this work, we propose DEBATE, an NLG evaluation framework based on multi-agent scoring system augmented with a concept of Devil's Advocate. Within the framework, one agent is instructed to criticize other agents' arguments, potentially resolving the bias in LLM agent's answers. DEBATE substantially outperforms the previous state-of-the-art methods in two meta-evaluation benchmarks in NLG evaluation, SummEval and TopicalChat. We also show that the extensiveness of debates among agents and the persona of an agent can influence the performance of evaluators.

To make AI systems broadly useful for challenging real-world tasks, we need them to learn complex human goals and preferences. One approach to specifying complex goals asks humans to judge during training which agent behaviors are safe and useful, but this approach can fail if the task is too complicated for a human to directly judge. To help address this concern, we propose training agents via self play on a zero sum debate game. Given a question or proposed action, two agents take turns making short statements up to a limit, then a human judges which of the agents gave the most true, useful information. In an analogy to complexity theory, debate with optimal play can answer any question in PSPACE given polynomial time judges (direct judging answers only NP questions). In practice, whether debate works involves empirical questions about humans and the tasks we want AIs to perform, plus theoretical questions about the meaning of AI alignment. We report results on an initial MNIST experiment where agents compete to convince a sparse classifier, boosting the classifier's accuracy from 59.4% to 88.9% given 6 pixels and from 48.2% to 85.2% given 4 pixels. Finally, we discuss theoretical and practical aspects of the debate model, focusing on potential weaknesses as the model scales up, and we propose future human and computer experiments to test these properties.

Multi-agent debate (MAD) is widely used to improve large language model (LLM) performance through test-time scaling, yet recent work shows that vanilla MAD often underperforms simple majority vote despite higher computational cost. Studies show that, under homogeneous agents and uniform belief updates, debate preserves expected correctness and therefore cannot reliably improve outcomes. Drawing on findings from human deliberation and collective decision-making, we identify two key mechanisms missing from vanilla MAD: (i) diversity of initial viewpoints and (ii) explicit, calibrated confidence communication. We propose two lightweight interventions. First, a diversity-aware initialisation that selects a more diverse pool of candidate answers, increasing the likelihood that a correct hypothesis is present at the start of debate. Second, a confidence-modulated debate protocol in which agents express calibrated confidence and condition their updates on others' confidence. We show theoretically that diversity-aware initialisation improves the prior probability of MAD success without changing the underlying update dynamics, while confidence-modulated updates enable debate to systematically drift to the correct hypothesis. Empirically, across six reasoning-oriented QA benchmarks, our methods consistently outperform vanilla MAD and majority vote. Our results connect human deliberation with LLM-based debate and demonstrate that simple, principled modifications can substantially enhance debate effectiveness.

Multi-agent debate (MAD) has recently emerged as a promising framework for improving the reasoning performance of large language models (LLMs). Yet, whether LLM agents can genuinely engage in deliberative reasoning, beyond simple ensembling or majority voting, remains unclear. We address this question through a controlled study using the Knight--Knave--Spy logic puzzle, which enables precise, step-wise evaluation of debate outcomes and processes under verifiable ground truth. We systematically set up six structural and cognitive factors, including agent team size, composition, confidence visibility, debate order, debate depth, and task difficulty, to disentangle their respective effects on collective reasoning. Our results show that intrinsic reasoning strength and group diversity are the dominant drivers of debate success, while structural parameters such as order or confidence visibility offer limited gains. Beyond outcomes, process-level analyses identify key behavioral patterns: majority pressure suppresses independent correction, effective teams overturn incorrect consensus, and rational, validity-aligned reasoning most strongly predicts improvement. These findings provide valuable insights into how and why LLM debates succeed or fail, offering guidance for designing interpretable and truth-seeking multi-agent reasoning systems.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have advanced autonomous agents' planning and decision-making, yet they struggle with complex tasks requiring diverse expertise and multi-step reasoning. Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) systems, introduced in NLP research, address this gap by enabling structured debates among LLM-based agents to refine solutions iteratively. MAD promotes divergent thinking through role-specific agents, dynamic interactions, and structured decision-making. Recognizing parallels between Software Engineering (SE) and collaborative human problem-solving, this study investigates MAD's effectiveness on two SE tasks. We adapt MAD systems from NLP, analyze agent interactions to assess consensus-building and iterative refinement, and propose two enhancements targeting observed weaknesses. Our findings show that structured debate and collaboration improve problem-solving and yield strong performance in some cases, highlighting MAD's potential for SE automation while identifying areas for exploration.

The reasoning abilities of large language models (LLMs) have been substantially improved by reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR). At test time, collaborative reasoning through Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) has emerged as a promising approach for enhancing LLM performance. However, current RLVR methods typically train LLMs to solve problems in isolation, without explicitly preparing them to synthesize and benefit from different rationales that arise during debate. In this work, we propose Self-Debate Reinforcement Learning (SDRL), a training framework that equips a single LLM with strong standalone problem-solving ability and the capability to learn from diverse reasoning trajectories in MAD. Given a prompt, SDRL first samples multiple candidate solutions, then constructs a debate context with diverse reasoning paths and generates second-turn responses conditioned on this context. Finally, SDRL jointly optimizes both the initial and debate-conditioned responses, yielding a model that is effective as both a standalone solver and a debate participant. Experiments across multiple base models and reasoning benchmarks show that SDRL improves overall MAD performance while simultaneously strengthening single model reasoning.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in language generation, understanding, and few-shot learning in recent years. An extensive body of work has explored how their performance may be further improved through the tools of prompting, ranging from verification, self-consistency, or intermediate scratchpads. In this paper, we present a complementary approach to improve language responses where multiple language model instances propose and debate their individual responses and reasoning processes over multiple rounds to arrive at a common final answer. Our findings indicate that this approach significantly enhances mathematical and strategic reasoning across a number of tasks. We also demonstrate that our approach improves the factual validity of generated content, reducing fallacious answers and hallucinations that contemporary models are prone to. Our approach may be directly applied to existing black-box models and uses identical procedure and prompts for all tasks we investigate. Overall, our findings suggest that such "society of minds" approach has the potential to significantly advance the capabilities of LLMs and pave the way for further breakthroughs in language generation and understanding.

LLM-based multi-agent systems demonstrate great potential for tackling complex problems, but how competition shapes their behavior remains underexplored. This paper investigates the over-competition in multi-agent debate, where agents under extreme pressure exhibit unreliable, harmful behaviors that undermine both collaboration and task performance. To study this phenomenon, we propose HATE, the Hunger Game Debate, a novel experimental framework that simulates debates under a zero-sum competition arena. Our experiments, conducted across a range of LLMs and tasks, reveal that competitive pressure significantly stimulates over-competition behaviors and degrades task performance, causing discussions to derail. We further explore the impact of environmental feedback by adding variants of judges, indicating that objective, task-focused feedback effectively mitigates the over-competition behaviors. We also probe the post-hoc kindness of LLMs and form a leaderboard to characterize top LLMs, providing insights for understanding and governing the emergent social dynamics of AI community.

Competitive debate is a complex task of computational argumentation. Large Language Models (LLMs) suffer from hallucinations and lack competitiveness in this field. To address these challenges, we introduce Agent for Debate (Agent4Debate), a dynamic multi-agent framework based on LLMs designed to enhance their capabilities in competitive debate. Drawing inspiration from human behavior in debate preparation and execution, Agent4Debate employs a collaborative architecture where four specialized agents, involving Searcher, Analyzer, Writer, and Reviewer, dynamically interact and cooperate. These agents work throughout the debate process, covering multiple stages from initial research and argument formulation to rebuttal and summary. To comprehensively evaluate framework performance, we construct the Competitive Debate Arena, comprising 66 carefully selected Chinese debate motions. We recruit ten experienced human debaters and collect records of 200 debates involving Agent4Debate, baseline models, and humans. The evaluation employs the Debatrix automatic scoring system and professional human reviewers based on the established Debatrix-Elo and Human-Elo ranking. Experimental results indicate that the state-of-the-art Agent4Debate exhibits capabilities comparable to those of humans. Furthermore, ablation studies demonstrate the effectiveness of each component in the agent structure.

Modern large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT have shown remarkable performance on general language tasks but still struggle on complex reasoning tasks, which drives the research on cognitive behaviors of LLMs to explore human-like problem-solving strategies. Along this direction, one representative strategy is self-reflection, which asks an LLM to refine the solution with the feedback generated by itself iteratively. However, our study shows that such reflection-style methods suffer from the Degeneration-of-Thought (DoT) problem: once the LLM has established confidence in its solutions, it is unable to generate novel thoughts later through reflection even if its initial stance is incorrect. To address the DoT problem, we propose a Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) framework, in which multiple agents express their arguments in the state of "tit for tat" and a judge manages the debate process to obtain a final solution. Clearly, our MAD framework encourages divergent thinking in LLMs which would be helpful for tasks that require deep levels of contemplation. Experiment results on two challenging datasets, commonsense machine translation and counter-intuitive arithmetic reasoning, demonstrate the effectiveness of our MAD framework. Extensive analyses suggest that the adaptive break of debate and the modest level of "tit for tat" state are required for MAD to obtain good performance. Moreover, we find that LLMs might not be a fair judge if different LLMs are used for agents. Codes: https://github.com/Skytliang/Multi-Agents-Debate

One of the most challenging forms of misinformation involves the out-of-context (OOC) use of images paired with misleading text, creating false narratives. Existing AI-driven detection systems lack explainability and require expensive finetuning. We address these issues with LLM-Consensus, a multi-agent debate system for OOC misinformation detection. LLM-Consensus introduces a novel multi-agent debate framework where multimodal agents collaborate to assess contextual consistency and request external information to enhance cross-context reasoning and decision-making. Our framework enables explainable detection with state-of-the-art accuracy even without domain-specific fine-tuning. Extensive ablation studies confirm that external retrieval significantly improves detection accuracy, and user studies demonstrate that LLM-Consensus boosts performance for both experts and non-experts. These results position LLM-Consensus as a powerful tool for autonomous and citizen intelligence applications.

Large Language Models (LLMs) need to adapt their predictions to diverse cultural contexts to benefit diverse communities across the world. While previous efforts have focused on single-LLM, single-turn approaches, we propose to exploit the complementary strengths of multiple LLMs to promote cultural adaptability. We introduce a Multi-Agent Debate framework, where two LLM-based agents debate over a cultural scenario and collaboratively reach a final decision. We propose two variants: one where either LLM agents exclusively debate and another where they dynamically choose between self-reflection and debate during their turns. We evaluate these approaches on 7 open-weight LLMs (and 21 LLM combinations) using the NormAd-ETI benchmark for social etiquette norms in 75 countries. Experiments show that debate improves both overall accuracy and cultural group parity over single-LLM baselines. Notably, multi-agent debate enables relatively small LLMs (7-9B) to achieve accuracies comparable to that of a much larger model (27B parameters).

The age of social media is flooded with Internet memes, necessitating a clear grasp and effective identification of harmful ones. This task presents a significant challenge due to the implicit meaning embedded in memes, which is not explicitly conveyed through the surface text and image. However, existing harmful meme detection methods do not present readable explanations that unveil such implicit meaning to support their detection decisions. In this paper, we propose an explainable approach to detect harmful memes, achieved through reasoning over conflicting rationales from both harmless and harmful positions. Specifically, inspired by the powerful capacity of Large Language Models (LLMs) on text generation and reasoning, we first elicit multimodal debate between LLMs to generate the explanations derived from the contradictory arguments. Then we propose to fine-tune a small language model as the debate judge for harmfulness inference, to facilitate multimodal fusion between the harmfulness rationales and the intrinsic multimodal information within memes. In this way, our model is empowered to perform dialectical reasoning over intricate and implicit harm-indicative patterns, utilizing multimodal explanations originating from both harmless and harmful arguments. Extensive experiments on three public meme datasets demonstrate that our harmful meme detection approach achieves much better performance than state-of-the-art methods and exhibits a superior capacity for explaining the meme harmfulness of the model predictions.

Large Language Models (LLMs), prominently highlighted by the recent evolution in the Generative Pre-trained Transformers (GPT) series, have displayed significant prowess across various domains, such as aiding in healthcare diagnostics and curating analytical business reports. The efficacy of GPTs lies in their ability to decode human instructions, achieved through comprehensively processing historical inputs as an entirety within their memory system. Yet, the memory processing of GPTs does not precisely emulate the hierarchical nature of human memory. This can result in LLMs struggling to prioritize immediate and critical tasks efficiently. To bridge this gap, we introduce an innovative LLM multi-agent framework endowed with layered memories. We assert that this framework is well-suited for stock and fund trading, where the extraction of highly relevant insights from hierarchical financial data is imperative to inform trading decisions. Within this framework, one agent organizes memory into three distinct layers, each governed by a custom decay mechanism, aligning more closely with human cognitive processes. Agents can also engage in inter-agent debate. In financial trading contexts, LLMs serve as the decision core for trading agents, leveraging their layered memory system to integrate multi-source historical actions and market insights. This equips them to navigate financial changes, formulate strategies, and debate with peer agents about investment decisions. Another standout feature of our approach is to equip agents with individualized trading traits, enhancing memory diversity and decision robustness. These sophisticated designs boost the system's responsiveness to historical trades and real-time market signals, ensuring superior automated trading accuracy.

The remarkable growth in large language model (LLM) capabilities has spurred exploration into multi-agent systems, with debate frameworks emerging as a promising avenue for enhanced problem-solving. These multi-agent debate (MAD) approaches, where agents collaboratively present, critique, and refine arguments, potentially offer improved reasoning, robustness, and diverse perspectives over monolithic models. Despite prior studies leveraging MAD, a systematic understanding of its effectiveness compared to self-agent methods, particularly under varying conditions, remains elusive. This paper seeks to fill this gap by conceptualizing MAD as a test-time computational scaling technique, distinguished by collaborative refinement and diverse exploration capabilities. We conduct a comprehensive empirical investigation comparing MAD with strong self-agent test-time scaling baselines on mathematical reasoning and safety-related tasks. Our study systematically examines the influence of task difficulty, model scale, and agent diversity on MAD's performance. Key findings reveal that, for mathematical reasoning, MAD offers limited advantages over self-agent scaling but becomes more effective with increased problem difficulty and decreased model capability, while agent diversity shows little benefit. Conversely, for safety tasks, MAD's collaborative refinement can increase vulnerability, but incorporating diverse agent configurations facilitates a gradual reduction in attack success through the collaborative refinement process. We believe our findings provide critical guidance for the future development of more effective and strategically deployed MAD systems.

In this work, we present a database of multimodal communication features extracted from debate speeches in the 2019 North American Universities Debate Championships (NAUDC). Feature sets were extracted from the visual (facial expression, gaze, and head pose), audio (PRAAT), and textual (word sentiment and linguistic category) modalities of raw video recordings of competitive collegiate debaters (N=717 6-minute recordings from 140 unique debaters). Each speech has an associated competition debate score (range: 67-96) from expert judges as well as competitor demographic and per-round reflection surveys. We observe the fully multimodal model performs best in comparison to models trained on various compositions of modalities. We also find that the weights of some features (such as the expression of joy and the use of the word we) change in direction between the aforementioned models. We use these results to highlight the value of a multimodal dataset for studying competitive, collegiate debate.

Multi-agent large language model (LLM) and vision-language model (VLM) debate systems employ specialized roles for complex problem-solving, yet model specializations are not leveraged to decide which model should fill which role. We propose dynamic role assignment, a framework that runs a Meta-Debate to select suitable agents before the actual debate. The meta-debate has two stages: (1) proposal, where candidates provide role-tailored arguments, and (2) peer review, where proposals are scored with data and role-specific criteria to choose the best agent for each position. We evaluate our method on LLM problem solving benchmarks. Applied on top of existing debate systems, our approach consistently outperforms uniform assignments (filling all roles with the same model) by up to 74.8% and random assignments (assigning models to roles without considering their suitability) by up to 29.7%, depending on the task and the specific assignment. This work establishes a new paradigm for multi-agent system design, shifting from static agent deployment to dynamic and capability-aware selection.

Pre-trained language models (PLM) based on transformer neural networks developed in the field of natural language processing (NLP) offer great opportunities to improve automatic content analysis in communication science, especially for the coding of complex semantic categories in large datasets via supervised machine learning. However, three characteristics so far impeded the widespread adoption of the methods in the applying disciplines: the dominance of English language models in NLP research, the necessary computing resources, and the effort required to produce training data to fine-tune PLMs. In this study, we address these challenges by using a multilingual transformer model in combination with the adapter extension to transformers, and few-shot learning methods. We test our approach on a realistic use case from communication science to automatically detect claims and arguments together with their stance in the German news debate on arms deliveries to Ukraine. In three experiments, we evaluate (1) data preprocessing strategies and model variants for this task, (2) the performance of different few-shot learning methods, and (3) how well the best setup performs on varying training set sizes in terms of validity, reliability, replicability and reproducibility of the results. We find that our proposed combination of transformer adapters with pattern exploiting training provides a parameter-efficient and easily shareable alternative to fully fine-tuning PLMs. It performs on par in terms of validity, while overall, provides better properties for application in communication studies. The results also show that pre-fine-tuning for a task on a near-domain dataset leads to substantial improvement, in particular in the few-shot setting. Further, the results indicate that it is useful to bias the dataset away from the viewpoints of specific prominent individuals.

Multi-agent systems have emerged as a powerful paradigm for automating scientific discovery. To differentiate agent behavior in the multi-agent system, current frameworks typically assign generic role-based personas such as ''reviewer'' or ''writer'' or rely on coarse grained keyword-based personas. While functional, this approach oversimplifies how human scientists operate, whose contributions are shaped by their unique research trajectories. In response, we propose INDIBATOR, a framework for molecular discovery that grounds agents in individualized scientist profiles constructed from two modalities: publication history for literature-derived knowledge and molecular history for structural priors. These agents engage in multi-turn debate through proposal, critique, and voting phases. Our evaluation demonstrates that these fine-grained individuality-grounded agents consistently outperform systems relying on coarse-grained personas, achieving competitive or state-of-the-art performance. These results validate that capturing the ``scientific DNA'' of individual agents is essential for high-quality discovery.

Despite the utility of Large Language Models (LLMs) across a wide range of tasks and scenarios, developing a method for reliably evaluating LLMs across varied contexts continues to be challenging. Modern evaluation approaches often use LLMs to assess responses generated by LLMs. However, the meta-evaluation conducted to assess the effectiveness of these LLMs as evaluators is typically constrained by the coverage of existing benchmarks or requires extensive human annotation. This underscores the urgency of methods for scalable meta-evaluation that can effectively, reliably, and efficiently evaluate the performance of LLMs as evaluators across diverse tasks and scenarios, particularly in potentially new, user-defined scenarios. To fill this gap, we propose ScaleEval, an agent-debate-assisted meta-evaluation framework that leverages the capabilities of multiple communicative LLM agents. This framework supports multi-round discussions to assist human annotators in discerning the most capable LLMs as evaluators, which significantly eases their workload in cases that used to require large-scale annotations during meta-evaluation. We release the code for our framework, which is publicly available at: https://github.com/GAIR-NLP/scaleeval.

Tabular data is one of the most commonly used types of data in machine learning. Despite recent advances in neural nets (NNs) for tabular data, there is still an active discussion on whether or not NNs generally outperform gradient-boosted decision trees (GBDTs) on tabular data, with several recent works arguing either that GBDTs consistently outperform NNs on tabular data, or vice versa. In this work, we take a step back and question the importance of this debate. To this end, we conduct the largest tabular data analysis to date, comparing 19 algorithms across 176 datasets, and we find that the 'NN vs. GBDT' debate is overemphasized: for a surprisingly high number of datasets, either the performance difference between GBDTs and NNs is negligible, or light hyperparameter tuning on a GBDT is more important than choosing between NNs and GBDTs. A remarkable exception is the recently-proposed prior-data fitted network, TabPFN: although it is effectively limited to training sets of size 3000, we find that it outperforms all other algorithms on average, even when randomly sampling 3000 training datapoints. Next, we analyze dozens of metafeatures to determine what properties of a dataset make NNs or GBDTs better-suited to perform well. For example, we find that GBDTs are much better than NNs at handling skewed or heavy-tailed feature distributions and other forms of dataset irregularities. Our insights act as a guide for practitioners to determine which techniques may work best on their dataset. Finally, with the goal of accelerating tabular data research, we release the TabZilla Benchmark Suite: a collection of the 36 'hardest' of the datasets we study. Our benchmark suite, codebase, and all raw results are available at https://github.com/naszilla/tabzilla.

The increasing amount of political debates and politics-related discussions calls for the definition of novel computational methods to automatically analyse such content with the final goal of lightening up political deliberation to citizens. However, the specificity of the political language and the argumentative form of these debates (employing hidden communication strategies and leveraging implicit arguments) make this task very challenging, even for current general-purpose pre-trained Language Models. To address this issue, we introduce a novel pre-trained Language Model for political discourse language called RooseBERT. Pre-training a language model on a specialised domain presents different technical and linguistic challenges, requiring extensive computational resources and large-scale data. RooseBERT has been trained on large political debate and speech corpora (8K debates, each composed of several sub-debates on different topics) in English. To evaluate its performances, we fine-tuned it on four downstream tasks related to political debate analysis, i.e., named entity recognition, sentiment analysis, argument component detection and classification, and argument relation prediction and classification. Our results demonstrate significant improvements over general-purpose Language Models on these four tasks, highlighting how domain-specific pre-training enhances performance in political debate analysis. We release the RooseBERT language model for the research community.

While large language model (LLM) multi-agent systems achieve superior reasoning performance through iterative debate, practical deployment is limited by their high computational cost and error propagation. This paper proposes AgentArk, a novel framework to distill multi-agent dynamics into the weights of a single model, effectively transforming explicit test-time interactions into implicit model capabilities. This equips a single agent with the intelligence of multi-agent systems while remaining computationally efficient. Specifically, we investigate three hierarchical distillation strategies across various models, tasks, scaling, and scenarios: reasoning-enhanced fine-tuning; trajectory-based augmentation; and process-aware distillation. By shifting the burden of computation from inference to training, the distilled models preserve the efficiency of one agent while exhibiting strong reasoning and self-correction performance of multiple agents. They further demonstrate enhanced robustness and generalization across diverse reasoning tasks. We hope this work can shed light on future research on efficient and robust multi-agent development. Our code is at https://github.com/AIFrontierLab/AgentArk.

This research tests the role of Large Language Models (LLMs) as formal second opinion tools in professional decision-making, particularly focusing on complex medical cases where even experienced physicians seek peer consultation. The work analyzed 183 challenging medical cases from Medscape over a 20-month period, testing multiple LLMs' performance against crowd-sourced physician responses. A key finding was the high overall score possible in the latest foundational models (>80% accuracy compared to consensus opinion), which exceeds most human metrics reported on the same clinical cases (450 pages of patient profiles, test results). The study rates the LLMs' performance disparity between straightforward cases (>81% accuracy) and complex scenarios (43% accuracy), particularly in these cases generating substantial debate among human physicians. The research demonstrates that LLMs may be valuable as generators of comprehensive differential diagnoses rather than as primary diagnostic tools, potentially helping to counter cognitive biases in clinical decision-making, reduce cognitive loads, and thus remove some sources of medical error. The inclusion of a second comparative legal dataset (Supreme Court cases, N=21) provides added empirical context to the AI use to foster second opinions, though these legal challenges proved considerably easier for LLMs to analyze. In addition to the original contributions of empirical evidence for LLM accuracy, the research aggregated a novel benchmark for others to score highly contested question and answer reliability between both LLMs and disagreeing human practitioners. These results suggest that the optimal deployment of LLMs in professional settings may differ substantially from current approaches that emphasize automation of routine tasks.

Machine learning (ML) enabled classification models are becoming increasingly popular for tackling the sheer volume and speed of online misinformation and other content that could be identified as harmful. In building these models, data scientists need to take a stance on the legitimacy, authoritativeness and objectivity of the sources of ``truth" used for model training and testing. This has political, ethical and epistemic implications which are rarely addressed in technical papers. Despite (and due to) their reported high accuracy and performance, ML-driven moderation systems have the potential to shape online public debate and create downstream negative impacts such as undue censorship and the reinforcing of false beliefs. Using collaborative ethnography and theoretical insights from social studies of science and expertise, we offer a critical analysis of the process of building ML models for (mis)information classification: we identify a series of algorithmic contingencies--key moments during model development that could lead to different future outcomes, uncertainty and harmful effects as these tools are deployed by social media platforms. We conclude by offering a tentative path toward reflexive and responsible development of ML tools for moderating misinformation and other harmful content online.

Existing agents based on large language models (LLMs) demonstrate robust problem-solving capabilities by integrating LLMs' inherent knowledge, strong in-context learning and zero-shot capabilities, and the use of tools combined with intricately designed LLM invocation workflows by humans. However, these agents still exhibit shortcomings in long-term reasoning and under-use the potential of existing tools, leading to noticeable deficiencies in complex real-world reasoning scenarios. To address these limitations, we introduce Sibyl, a simple yet powerful LLM-based agent framework designed to tackle complex reasoning tasks by efficiently leveraging a minimal set of tools. Drawing inspiration from Global Workspace Theory, Sibyl incorporates a global workspace to enhance the management and sharing of knowledge and conversation history throughout the system. Furthermore, guided by Society of Mind Theory, Sibyl implements a multi-agent debate-based jury to self-refine the final answers, ensuring a comprehensive and balanced approach. This approach aims to reduce system complexity while expanding the scope of problems solvable-from matters typically resolved by humans in minutes to those requiring hours or even days, thus facilitating a shift from System-1 to System-2 thinking. Sibyl has been designed with a focus on scalability and ease of debugging by incorporating the concept of reentrancy from functional programming from its inception, with the aim of seamless and low effort integration in other LLM applications to improve capabilities. Our experimental results on the GAIA benchmark test set reveal that the Sibyl agent instantiated with GPT-4 achieves state-of-the-art performance with an average score of 34.55%, compared to other agents based on GPT-4. We hope that Sibyl can inspire more reliable and reusable LLM-based agent solutions to address complex real-world reasoning tasks.

Equipping agents with the capacity to justify made decisions using supporting evidence represents a cornerstone of accountable decision-making. Furthermore, ensuring that justifications are in line with human expectations and societal norms is vital, especially in high-stakes situations such as healthcare. In this work, we propose the use of a debate-based reward model for reinforcement learning agents, where the outcome of a zero-sum debate game quantifies the justifiability of a decision in a particular state. This reward model is then used to train a justifiable policy, whose decisions can be more easily corroborated with supporting evidence. In the debate game, two argumentative agents take turns providing supporting evidence for two competing decisions. Given the proposed evidence, a proxy of a human judge evaluates which decision is better justified. We demonstrate the potential of our approach in learning policies for prescribing and justifying treatment decisions of septic patients. We show that augmenting the reward with the feedback signal generated by the debate-based reward model yields policies highly favored by the judge when compared to the policy obtained solely from the environment rewards, while hardly sacrificing any performance. Moreover, in terms of the overall performance and justifiability of trained policies, the debate-based feedback is comparable to the feedback obtained from an ideal judge proxy that evaluates decisions using the full information encoded in the state. This suggests that the debate game outputs key information contained in states that is most relevant for evaluating decisions, which in turn substantiates the practicality of combining our approach with human-in-the-loop evaluations. Lastly, we showcase that agents trained via multi-agent debate learn to propose evidence that is resilient to refutations and closely aligns with human preferences.

Compound AI systems that combine multiple LLM calls, such as self-refine and multi-agent-debate, achieve strong performance on many AI tasks. We address a core question in optimizing compound systems: for each LLM call or module in the system, how should one decide which LLM to use? We show that these LLM choices have a large effect on quality, but the search space is exponential. We propose LLMSelector, an efficient framework for model selection in compound systems, which leverages two key empirical insights: (i) end-to-end performance is often monotonic in how well each module performs, with all other modules held fixed, and (ii) per-module performance can be estimated accurately by an LLM. Building upon these insights, LLMSelector iteratively selects one module and allocates to it the model with the highest module-wise performance, as estimated by an LLM, until no further gain is possible. LLMSelector is applicable to any compound system with a bounded number of modules, and its number of API calls scales linearly with the number of modules, achieving high-quality model allocation both empirically and theoretically. Experiments with popular compound systems such as multi-agent debate and self-refine using LLMs such as GPT-4o, Claude 3.5 Sonnet and Gemini 1.5 show that LLMSelector confers 5%-70% accuracy gains compared to using the same LLM for all modules.

Autonomous agents have demonstrated significant potential in automating complex multistep decision-making tasks. However, even state-of-the-art vision-language models (VLMs), such as GPT-4o, still fall short of human-level performance, particularly in intricate web environments and long-horizon planning tasks. To address these limitations, we introduce Reflective Monte Carlo Tree Search (R-MCTS), a novel test-time algorithm designed to enhance the ability of AI agents, e.g., powered by GPT-4o, to explore decision space on the fly. R-MCTS extends traditional MCTS by 1) incorporating contrastive reflection, allowing agents to learn from past interactions and dynamically improve their search efficiency; and 2) using multi-agent debate to provide reliable state evaluation. Moreover, we improve the agent's performance by fine-tuning GPT-4o through self-learning, using R-MCTS generated tree traversals without any human-provided labels. On the challenging VisualWebArena benchmark, our GPT-4o-based R-MCTS agent achieves a 6% to 30% relative improvement across various tasks compared to the previous state-of-the-art. Additionally, we show that the knowledge gained from test-time search can be effectively transferred back to GPT-4o via fine-tuning. The fine-tuned GPT-4o matches 97% of R-MCTS's performance while reducing compute usage by a factor of four at test time. Furthermore, qualitative results reveal that the fine-tuned GPT-4o model demonstrates the ability to explore the environment, evaluate a state, and backtrack to viable ones when it detects that the current state cannot lead to success. Moreover, our work demonstrates the compute scaling properties in both training - data collection with R-MCTS - and testing time. These results suggest a promising research direction to enhance VLMs' reasoning and planning capabilities for agentic applications via test-time search and self-learning.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently made significant strides in complex reasoning tasks through the Chain-of-Thought technique. Despite this progress, their reasoning is often constrained by their intrinsic understanding, lacking external insights. To address this, we propose Exchange-of-Thought (EoT), a novel framework that enables cross-model communication during problem-solving. Drawing inspiration from network topology, EoT integrates four unique communication paradigms: Memory, Report, Relay, and Debate. This paper delves into the communication dynamics and volume associated with each paradigm. To counterbalance the risks of incorrect reasoning chains, we implement a robust confidence evaluation mechanism within these communications. Our experiments across diverse complex reasoning tasks demonstrate that EoT significantly surpasses established baselines, underscoring the value of external insights in enhancing LLM performance. Furthermore, we show that EoT achieves these superior results in a cost-effective manner, marking a promising advancement for efficient and collaborative AI problem-solving.

We present R-Debater, an agentic framework for generating multi-turn debates built on argumentative memory. Grounded in rhetoric and memory studies, the system views debate as a process of recalling and adapting prior arguments to maintain stance consistency, respond to opponents, and support claims with evidence. Specifically, R-Debater integrates a debate knowledge base for retrieving case-like evidence and prior debate moves with a role-based agent that composes coherent utterances across turns. We evaluate on standardized ORCHID debates, constructing a 1,000-item retrieval corpus and a held-out set of 32 debates across seven domains. Two tasks are evaluated: next-utterance generation, assessed by InspireScore (subjective, logical, and factual), and adversarial multi-turn simulations, judged by Debatrix (argument, source, language, and overall). Compared with strong LLM baselines, R-Debater achieves higher single-turn and multi-turn scores. Human evaluation with 20 experienced debaters further confirms its consistency and evidence use, showing that combining retrieval grounding with structured planning yields more faithful, stance-aligned, and coherent debates across turns.

We introduce Debate Speech Evaluation as a novel and challenging benchmark for assessing LLM judges. Evaluating debate speeches requires a deep understanding of the speech at multiple levels, including argument strength and relevance, the coherence and organization of the speech, the appropriateness of its style and tone, and so on. This task involves a unique set of cognitive abilities that have previously received limited attention in systematic LLM benchmarking. To explore such skills, we leverage a dataset of over 600 meticulously annotated debate speeches and present the first in-depth analysis of how state-of-the-art LLMs compare to human judges on this task. Our findings reveal a nuanced picture: while larger models can approximate individual human judgments in some respects, they differ substantially in their overall judgment behavior. We also investigate the ability of frontier LLMs to generate persuasive, opinionated speeches, showing that models may perform at a human level on this task.

We test the robustness of debate as a method of scalable oversight by training models to debate with data generated via self-play. In a long-context reading comprehension task, we find that language model based evaluators answer questions more accurately when judging models optimized to win debates. By contrast, we find no such relationship for consultancy models trained to persuade a judge without an opposing debater present. In quantitative and qualitative comparisons between our debate models and novel consultancy baselines, we find evidence that debate training encourages stronger and more informative arguments, showing promise that it can help provide high-quality supervision for tasks that are difficult to directly evaluate.

We introduce DebateBench, a novel dataset consisting of an extensive collection of transcripts and metadata from some of the world's most prestigious competitive debates. The dataset consists of British Parliamentary debates from prestigious debating tournaments on diverse topics, annotated with detailed speech-level scores and house rankings sourced from official adjudication data. We curate 256 speeches across 32 debates with each debate being over 1 hour long with each input being an average of 32,000 tokens. Designed to capture long-context, large-scale reasoning tasks, DebateBench provides a benchmark for evaluating modern large language models (LLMs) on their ability to engage in argumentation, deliberation, and alignment with human experts. To do well on DebateBench, the LLMs must perform in-context learning to understand the rules and evaluation criteria of the debates, then analyze 8 seven minute long speeches and reason about the arguments presented by all speakers to give the final results. Our preliminary evaluation using GPT o1, GPT-4o, and Claude Haiku, shows that LLMs struggle to perform well on DebateBench, highlighting the need to develop more sophisticated techniques for improving their performance.

As frontier language models increasingly saturate standard QA benchmarks, concerns about data contamination, memorization, and escalating dataset creation costs persist. We propose a debate-driven evaluation paradigm that transforms any existing QA dataset into structured adversarial debates--where one model is given the official answer to defend, and another constructs and defends an alternative answer--adjudicated by a judge model blind to the correct solution. By forcing multi-round argumentation, this approach substantially increases difficulty while penalizing shallow memorization, yet reuses QA items to reduce curation overhead. We make two main contributions: (1) an evaluation pipeline to systematically convert QA tasks into debate-based assessments, and (2) a public benchmark that demonstrates our paradigm's effectiveness on a subset of MMLU-Pro questions, complete with standardized protocols and reference models. Empirical results validate the robustness of the method and its effectiveness against data contamination--a Llama 3.1 model fine-tuned on test questions showed dramatic accuracy improvements (50% -> 82%) but performed worse in debates. Results also show that even weaker judges can reliably differentiate stronger debaters, highlighting how debate-based evaluation can scale to future, more capable systems while maintaining a fraction of the cost of creating new benchmarks. Overall, our framework underscores that "pretraining on the test set is no longer all you need," offering a sustainable path for measuring the genuine reasoning ability of advanced language models.

Accurately modeling opinion change through social interactions is crucial for addressing issues like misinformation and polarization. While role-playing large language models (LLMs) offer a promising way to simulate human-like interactions, existing research shows that single-agent alignment does not guarantee authentic multi-agent group dynamics. Current LLM role-play setups often produce unnatural dynamics (e.g., premature convergence), without an empirical benchmark to measure authentic human opinion trajectories. To bridge this gap, we introduce DEBATE, the first large-scale empirical benchmark explicitly designed to evaluate the authenticity of the interaction between multi-agent role-playing LLMs. DEBATE contains 29,417 messages from multi-round debate conversations among over 2,792 U.S.-based participants discussing 107 controversial topics, capturing both publicly-expressed messages and privately-reported opinions. Using DEBATE, we systematically evaluate and identify critical discrepancies between simulated and authentic group dynamics. We further demonstrate DEBATE's utility for aligning LLMs with human behavior through supervised fine-tuning, achieving improvements in surface-level metrics (e.g., ROUGE-L and message length) while highlighting limitations in deeper semantic alignment (e.g., semantic similarity). Our findings highlight both the potential and current limitations of role-playing LLM agents for realistically simulating human-like social dynamics.

This paper investigates the rational thinking capability of Large Language Models (LLMs) in multi-round argumentative debates by exploring the impact of fallacious arguments on their logical reasoning performance. More specifically, we present Logic Competence Measurement Benchmark (LOGICOM), a diagnostic benchmark to assess the robustness of LLMs against logical fallacies. LOGICOM involves two agents: a persuader and a debater engaging in a multi-round debate on a controversial topic, where the persuader tries to convince the debater of the correctness of its claim. First, LOGICOM assesses the potential of LLMs to change their opinions through reasoning. Then, it evaluates the debater's performance in logical reasoning by contrasting the scenario where the persuader employs logical fallacies against one where logical reasoning is used. We use this benchmark to evaluate the performance of GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 using a dataset containing controversial topics, claims, and reasons supporting them. Our findings indicate that both GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 can adjust their opinion through reasoning. However, when presented with logical fallacies, GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 are erroneously convinced 41% and 69% more often, respectively, compared to when logical reasoning is used. Finally, we introduce a new dataset containing over 5k pairs of logical vs. fallacious arguments. The source code and dataset of this work are made publicly available.

Prior work in Argument Mining frequently alludes to its potential applications in automatic debating systems. Despite this focus, almost no datasets or models exist which apply natural language processing techniques to problems found within competitive formal debate. To remedy this, we present the DebateSum dataset. DebateSum consists of 187,386 unique pieces of evidence with corresponding argument and extractive summaries. DebateSum was made using data compiled by competitors within the National Speech and Debate Association over a 7-year period. We train several transformer summarization models to benchmark summarization performance on DebateSum. We also introduce a set of fasttext word-vectors trained on DebateSum called debate2vec. Finally, we present a search engine for this dataset which is utilized extensively by members of the National Speech and Debate Association today. The DebateSum search engine is available to the public here: http://www.debate.cards

The core premise of AI debate as a scalable oversight technique is that it is harder to lie convincingly than to refute a lie, enabling the judge to identify the correct position. Yet, existing debate experiments have relied on datasets with ground truth, where lying is reduced to defending an incorrect proposition. This overlooks a subjective dimension: lying also requires the belief that the claim defended is false. In this work, we apply debate to subjective questions and explicitly measure large language models' prior beliefs before experiments. Debaters were asked to select their preferred position, then presented with a judge persona deliberately designed to conflict with their identified priors. This setup tested whether models would adopt sycophantic strategies, aligning with the judge's presumed perspective to maximize persuasiveness, or remain faithful to their prior beliefs. We implemented and compared two debate protocols, sequential and simultaneous, to evaluate potential systematic biases. Finally, we assessed whether models were more persuasive and produced higher-quality arguments when defending positions consistent with their prior beliefs versus when arguing against them. Our main findings show that models tend to prefer defending stances aligned with the judge persona rather than their prior beliefs, sequential debate introduces significant bias favoring the second debater, models are more persuasive when defending positions aligned with their prior beliefs, and paradoxically, arguments misaligned with prior beliefs are rated as higher quality in pairwise comparison. These results can inform human judges to provide higher-quality training signals and contribute to more aligned AI systems, while revealing important aspects of human-AI interaction regarding persuasion dynamics in language models.

Large language models frequently encounter conflicts between their parametric knowledge and contextual input, often resulting in factual inconsistencies or hallucinations. We propose Self-Reflective Debate for Contextual Reliability (SR-DCR), a lightweight framework that integrates token-level self-confidence with an asymmetric multi-agent debate to adjudicate such conflicts. A critic, deprived of context, challenges a defender who argues from the given passage; a judge model evaluates the debate and determines the context's reliability. The final answer is selected by combining the verdict with model confidence. Experiments on the ClashEval benchmark demonstrate that SR-DCR consistently enhances robustness to misleading context while maintaining accuracy on trustworthy inputs, outperforming both classical debate and confidence-only baselines with minimal computational overhead. The code is available at https://github.com/smiles724/Self-Reflective-Debates.

Recent work within the Argument Mining community has shown the applicability of Natural Language Processing systems for solving problems found within competitive debate. One of the most important tasks within competitive debate is for debaters to create high quality debate cases. We show that effective debate cases can be constructed using constrained shortest path traversals on Argumentative Semantic Knowledge Graphs. We study this potential in the context of a type of American Competitive Debate, called Policy Debate, which already has a large scale dataset targeting it called DebateSum. We significantly improve upon DebateSum by introducing 53180 new examples, as well as further useful metadata for every example, to the dataset. We leverage the txtai semantic search and knowledge graph toolchain to produce and contribute 9 semantic knowledge graphs built on this dataset. We create a unique method for evaluating which knowledge graphs are better in the context of producing policy debate cases. A demo which automatically generates debate cases, along with all other code and the Knowledge Graphs, are open-sourced and made available to the public here: https://github.com/Hellisotherpeople/DebateKG

Scalable oversight protocols aim to enable humans to accurately supervise superhuman AI. In this paper we study debate, where two AI's compete to convince a judge; consultancy, where a single AI tries to convince a judge that asks questions; and compare to a baseline of direct question-answering, where the judge just answers outright without the AI. We use large language models (LLMs) as both AI agents and as stand-ins for human judges, taking the judge models to be weaker than agent models. We benchmark on a diverse range of asymmetries between judges and agents, extending previous work on a single extractive QA task with information asymmetry, to also include mathematics, coding, logic and multimodal reasoning asymmetries. We find that debate outperforms consultancy across all tasks when the consultant is randomly assigned to argue for the correct/incorrect answer. Comparing debate to direct question answering, the results depend on the type of task: in extractive QA tasks with information asymmetry debate outperforms direct question answering, but in other tasks without information asymmetry the results are mixed. Previous work assigned debaters/consultants an answer to argue for. When we allow them to instead choose which answer to argue for, we find judges are less frequently convinced by the wrong answer in debate than in consultancy. Further, we find that stronger debater models increase judge accuracy, though more modestly than in previous studies.

Making LLMs speak for different, especially minority groups of people, and generate statements supporting their diverse or even controversial perspectives is critical to creating an inclusive environment. However, existing LLMs lack sufficient controllability to the stance of their generated content, which often contains inconsistent, neutral, or biased statements. In this paper, we improve the controllability of LLMs in generating statements supporting an argument the user defined in the prompt. We find that multi-round debates between two LLMs with opposite stances generate higher-quality and more salient statements for each, which are important training data to improve the controllability of LLMs. Motivated by this, we develop a novel debate & tuning (DEBATUNE) pipeline finetuning LLMs to generate the statements obtained via debate. To examine DEBATUNE, we curate the largest dataset of debate topics so far, which covers 710 controversial topics and corresponding arguments for each topic. Evaluations by the GPT-4 judge with a novel controversy controllability metric show that LLMs' capability of generating diverse perspectives is significantly improved by DEBATUNE. Moreover, such controllability can be generalized to unseen topics, generating high-quality statements supporting controversial arguments.

Can LLMs accurately adjust their confidence when facing opposition? Building on previous studies measuring calibration on static fact-based question-answering tasks, we evaluate Large Language Models (LLMs) in a dynamic, adversarial debate setting, uniquely combining two realistic factors: (a) a multi-turn format requiring models to update beliefs as new information emerges, and (b) a zero-sum structure to control for task-related uncertainty, since mutual high-confidence claims imply systematic overconfidence. We organized 60 three-round policy debates among ten state-of-the-art LLMs, with models privately rating their confidence (0-100) in winning after each round. We observed five concerning patterns: (1) Systematic overconfidence: models began debates with average initial confidence of 72.9% vs. a rational 50% baseline. (2) Confidence escalation: rather than reducing confidence as debates progressed, debaters increased their win probabilities, averaging 83% by the final round. (3) Mutual overestimation: in 61.7% of debates, both sides simultaneously claimed >=75% probability of victory, a logical impossibility. (4) Persistent self-debate bias: models debating identical copies increased confidence from 64.1% to 75.2%; even when explicitly informed their chance of winning was exactly 50%, confidence still rose (from 50.0% to 57.1%). (5) Misaligned private reasoning: models' private scratchpad thoughts sometimes differed from their public confidence ratings, raising concerns about faithfulness of chain-of-thought reasoning. These results suggest LLMs lack the ability to accurately self-assess or update their beliefs in dynamic, multi-turn tasks; a major concern as LLMs are now increasingly deployed without careful review in assistant and agentic roles. Code for our experiments is available at https://github.com/pradyuprasad/llms_overconfidence

Common methods for aligning large language models (LLMs) with desired behaviour heavily rely on human-labelled data. However, as models grow increasingly sophisticated, they will surpass human expertise, and the role of human evaluation will evolve into non-experts overseeing experts. In anticipation of this, we ask: can weaker models assess the correctness of stronger models? We investigate this question in an analogous setting, where stronger models (experts) possess the necessary information to answer questions and weaker models (non-experts) lack this information. The method we evaluate is debate, where two LLM experts each argue for a different answer, and a non-expert selects the answer. We find that debate consistently helps both non-expert models and humans answer questions, achieving 76% and 88% accuracy respectively (naive baselines obtain 48% and 60%). Furthermore, optimising expert debaters for persuasiveness in an unsupervised manner improves non-expert ability to identify the truth in debates. Our results provide encouraging empirical evidence for the viability of aligning models with debate in the absence of ground truth.

With the recent advances of large language models (LLMs), it is no longer infeasible to build an automated debate system that helps people to synthesise persuasive arguments. Previous work attempted this task by integrating multiple components. In our work, we introduce an argument mining dataset that captures the end-to-end process of preparing an argumentative essay for a debate, which covers the tasks of claim and evidence identification (Task 1 ED), evidence convincingness ranking (Task 2 ECR), argumentative essay summarisation and human preference ranking (Task 3 ASR) and metric learning for automated evaluation of resulting essays, based on human feedback along argument quality dimensions (Task 4 SQE). Our dataset contains 14k examples of claims that are fully annotated with the various properties supporting the aforementioned tasks. We evaluate multiple generative baselines for each of these tasks, including representative LLMs. We find, that while they show promising results on individual tasks in our benchmark, their end-to-end performance on all four tasks in succession deteriorates significantly, both in automated measures as well as in human-centred evaluation. This challenge presented by our proposed dataset motivates future research on end-to-end argument mining and summarisation. The repository of this project is available at https://github.com/HarrywillDr/ArgSum-Datatset

As the most public component of the Supreme Court's decision-making process, oral argument receives an out-sized share of attention in the popular media. Despite its prominence, however, the basic function and operation of oral argument as an institution remains poorly understood, as political scientists and legal scholars continue to debate even the most fundamental questions about its role. Past study of oral argument has tended to focus on discrete, quantifiable attributes of oral argument, such as the number of questions asked to each advocate, the party of the Justices' appointing president, or the ideological implications of the case on appeal. Such studies allow broad generalizations about oral argument and judicial decision making: Justices tend to vote in accordance with their ideological preferences, and they tend to ask more questions when they are skeptical of a party's position. But they tell us little about the actual goings on at oral argument -- the running dialog between Justice and advocate that is the heart of the institution. This Article fills that void, using machine learning techniques to, for the first time, construct predictive models of judicial decision making based not on oral argument's superficial features or on factors external to oral argument, such as where the case falls on a liberal-conservative spectrum, but on the actual content of the oral argument itself -- the Justices' questions to each side. The resultant models offer an important new window into aspects of oral argument that have long resisted empirical study, including the Justices' individual questioning styles, how each expresses skepticism, and which of the Justices' questions are most central to oral argument dialog.

In oral arguments, judges probe attorneys with questions about the factual record, legal claims, and the strength of their arguments. To prepare for this questioning, both law schools and practicing attorneys rely on moot courts: practice simulations of appellate hearings. Leveraging a dataset of U.S. Supreme Court oral argument transcripts, we examine whether AI models can effectively simulate justice-specific questioning for moot court-style training. Evaluating oral argument simulation is challenging because there is no single correct question for any given turn. Instead, effective questioning should reflect a combination of desirable qualities, such as anticipating substantive legal issues, detecting logical weaknesses, and maintaining an appropriately adversarial tone. We introduce a two-layer evaluation framework that assesses both the realism and pedagogical usefulness of simulated questions using complementary proxy metrics. We construct and evaluate both prompt-based and agentic oral argument simulators. We find that simulated questions are often perceived as realistic by human annotators and achieve high recall of ground truth substantive legal issues. However, models still face substantial shortcomings, including low diversity in question types and sycophancy. Importantly, these shortcomings would remain undetected under naive evaluation approaches.

Large language models (LLMs) have improved significantly in their reasoning through extensive training on massive datasets. However, relying solely on additional data for improvement is becoming increasingly impractical, highlighting the need for models to autonomously enhance their reasoning without external supervision. In this paper, we propose Debate, Train, Evolve (DTE), a novel ground truth-free training framework that uses multi-agent debate traces to evolve a single language model. We also introduce a new prompting strategy Reflect-Critique-Refine, to improve debate quality by explicitly instructing agents to critique and refine their reasoning. Extensive evaluations on five reasoning benchmarks with six open-weight models show that our DTE framework achieve substantial improvements, with an average accuracy gain of 8.92% on the challenging GSM-PLUS dataset. Furthermore, we observe strong cross-domain generalization, with an average accuracy gain of 5.8% on all other benchmarks, suggesting that our method captures general reasoning capabilities.

We introduce OpenDebateEvidence, a comprehensive dataset for argument mining and summarization sourced from the American Competitive Debate community. This dataset includes over 3.5 million documents with rich metadata, making it one of the most extensive collections of debate evidence. OpenDebateEvidence captures the complexity of arguments in high school and college debates, providing valuable resources for training and evaluation. Our extensive experiments demonstrate the efficacy of fine-tuning state-of-the-art large language models for argumentative abstractive summarization across various methods, models, and datasets. By providing this comprehensive resource, we aim to advance computational argumentation and support practical applications for debaters, educators, and researchers. OpenDebateEvidence is publicly available to support further research and innovation in computational argumentation. Access it here: https://huggingface.co/datasets/Yusuf5/OpenCaselist

The rapid advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs) necessitates robust and challenging benchmarks. Leaderboards like Chatbot Arena rank LLMs based on how well their responses align with human preferences. However, many tasks such as those related to emotional intelligence, creative writing, or persuasiveness, are highly subjective and often lack majoritarian human agreement. Judges may have irreconcilable disagreements about what constitutes a better response. To address the challenge of ranking LLMs on highly subjective tasks, we propose a novel benchmarking framework, the Language Model Council (LMC). The LMC operates through a democratic process to: 1) formulate a test set through equal participation, 2) administer the test among council members, and 3) evaluate responses as a collective jury. We deploy a council of 20 newest LLMs on an open-ended emotional intelligence task: responding to interpersonal dilemmas. Our results show that the LMC produces rankings that are more separable, robust, and less biased than those from any individual LLM judge, and is more consistent with a human-established leaderboard compared to other benchmarks.

Newspaper reports provide a rich source of information on the unfolding of public debate on specific policy fields that can serve as basis for inquiry in political science. Such debates are often triggered by critical events, which attract public attention and incite the reactions of political actors: crisis sparks the debate. However, due to the challenges of reliable annotation and modeling, few large-scale datasets with high-quality annotation are available. This paper introduces DebateNet2.0, which traces the political discourse on the European refugee crisis in the German quality newspaper taz during the year 2015. The core units of our annotation are political claims (requests for specific actions to be taken within the policy field) and the actors who make them (politicians, parties, etc.). The contribution of this paper is twofold. First, we document and release DebateNet2.0 along with its companion R package, mardyR, guiding the reader through the practical and conceptual issues related to the annotation of policy debates in newspapers. Second, we outline and apply a Discourse Network Analysis (DNA) to DebateNet2.0, comparing two crucial moments of the policy debate on the 'refugee crisis': the migration flux through the Mediterranean in April/May and the one along the Balkan route in September/October. Besides the released resources and the case-study, our contribution is also methodological: we talk the reader through the steps from a newspaper article to a discourse network, demonstrating that there is not just one discourse network for the German migration debate, but multiple ones, depending on the topic of interest (political actors, policy fields, time spans).

Traditionally, a debate usually requires a manual preparation process, including reading plenty of articles, selecting the claims, identifying the stances of the claims, seeking the evidence for the claims, etc. As the AI debate attracts more attention these years, it is worth exploring the methods to automate the tedious process involved in the debating system. In this work, we introduce a comprehensive and large dataset named IAM, which can be applied to a series of argument mining tasks, including claim extraction, stance classification, evidence extraction, etc. Our dataset is collected from over 1k articles related to 123 topics. Near 70k sentences in the dataset are fully annotated based on their argument properties (e.g., claims, stances, evidence, etc.). We further propose two new integrated argument mining tasks associated with the debate preparation process: (1) claim extraction with stance classification (CESC) and (2) claim-evidence pair extraction (CEPE). We adopt a pipeline approach and an end-to-end method for each integrated task separately. Promising experimental results are reported to show the values and challenges of our proposed tasks, and motivate future research on argument mining.

As AI grows more powerful, it will increasingly shape how we understand the world. But with this influence comes the risk of amplifying misinformation and deepening social divides-especially on consequential topics like public health where factual accuracy directly impacts well-being. Scalable Oversight aims to ensure AI truthfulness by enabling humans to supervise systems that may exceed human capabilities--yet humans themselves hold different beliefs and biases that impair their judgment. We study whether AI debate can guide biased judges toward the truth by having two AI systems debate opposing sides of controversial COVID-19 factuality claims where people hold strong prior beliefs. We conduct two studies: one with human judges holding either mainstream or skeptical beliefs evaluating factuality claims through AI-assisted debate or consultancy protocols, and a second examining the same problem with personalized AI judges designed to mimic these different human belief systems. In our human study, we find that debate-where two AI advisor systems present opposing evidence-based arguments-consistently improves judgment accuracy and confidence calibration, outperforming consultancy with a single-advisor system by 10% overall. The improvement is most significant for judges with mainstream beliefs (+15.2% accuracy), though debate also helps skeptical judges who initially misjudge claims move toward accurate views (+4.7% accuracy). In our AI judge study, we find that AI judges with human-like personas achieve even higher accuracy (78.5%) than human judges (70.1%) and default AI judges without personas (69.8%), suggesting their potential for supervising frontier AI models. These findings highlight AI debate as a promising path toward scalable, bias-resilient oversight--leveraging both diverse human and AI judgments to move closer to truth in contested domains.

Controversy is a reflection of our zeitgeist, and an important aspect to any discourse. The rise of large language models (LLMs) as conversational systems has increased public reliance on these systems for answers to their various questions. Consequently, it is crucial to systematically examine how these models respond to questions that pertaining to ongoing debates. However, few such datasets exist in providing human-annotated labels reflecting the contemporary discussions. To foster research in this area, we propose a novel construction of a controversial questions dataset, expanding upon the publicly released Quora Question Pairs Dataset. This dataset presents challenges concerning knowledge recency, safety, fairness, and bias. We evaluate different LLMs using a subset of this dataset, illuminating how they handle controversial issues and the stances they adopt. This research ultimately contributes to our understanding of LLMs' interaction with controversial issues, paving the way for improvements in their comprehension and handling of complex societal debates.

Multi-agent debates have been introduced to improve the accuracy of Large Language Models (LLMs) by having multiple agents discuss solutions to a problem over several rounds of debate. However, models often generate incorrect yet confident-sounding responses, which can mislead others. This issue arises partly because agents do not consider how confident their peers are. To address this, we propose DebUnc, a debate framework that uses uncertainty metrics to assess agent confidence. Confidence is then conveyed through a modified attention mechanism that adjusts token weights, or through textual prompts. Evaluations across benchmarks show that attention-based methods are particularly effective and that performance continues to improve as uncertainty estimation becomes more reliable. The code is available at https://github.com/lukeyoffe/debunc.