搜索结果：Debate

AI safety via debate and reinforcement learning from AI feedback (RLAIF) are both proposed methods for scalable oversight of advanced AI systems, yet no formal framework relates them or characterizes when debate offers an advantage. We analyze this by parameterizing debate's value through the geometry of knowledge divergence between debating models. Using principal angles between models' representation subspaces, we prove that the debate advantage admits an exact closed form. When models share identical training corpora, debate reduces to RLAIF-like where a single-agent method recovers the same optimum. When models possess divergent knowledge, debate advantage scales with a phase transition from quadratic regime (debate offers negligible benefit) to linear regime (debate is essential). We classify three regimes of knowledge divergence (shared, one-sided, and compositional) and provide existence results showing that debate can achieve outcomes inaccessible to either model alone, alongside a negative result showing that sufficiently strong adversarial incentives cause coordination failure in the compositional regime, with a sharp threshold separating effective from ineffective debate

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.

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 ind

In recent years, Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities across diverse NLP tasks. Extensive research has explored how to enhance the logical reasoning abilities such as Chain-of-Thought, Chain-of-Thought with Self-Consistency, Tree-Of-Thoughts, and multi-agent debates. In the context of multi-agent debates, significant performance improvements can be achieved with an increasing number of agents and debate rounds. However, the escalation in the number of agents and debate rounds can drastically raise the tokens cost of debates, thereby limiting the scalability of the multi-agent debate technique. To better harness the advantages of multi-agent debates in logical reasoning tasks, this paper proposes a method to significantly reduce token cost in multi-agent debates. This approach involves dividing all agents into multiple debate groups, with agents engaging in debates within their respective groups and sharing interim debate results between groups. Comparative experiments across multiple datasets have demonstrated that this method can reduce the total tokens by up to 51.7% during debates and while potentially enhancing accuracy by as much as 25%. Our m

Training powerful AI systems to exhibit desired behaviors hinges on the ability to provide accurate human supervision on increasingly complex tasks. A promising approach to this problem is to amplify human judgement by leveraging the power of two competing AIs in a debate about the correct solution to a given problem. Prior theoretical work has provided a complexity-theoretic formalization of AI debate, and posed the problem of designing protocols for AI debate that guarantee the correctness of human judgements for as complex a class of problems as possible. Recursive debates, in which debaters decompose a complex problem into simpler subproblems, hold promise for growing the class of problems that can be accurately judged in a debate. However, existing protocols for recursive debate run into the obfuscated arguments problem: a dishonest debater can use a computationally efficient strategy that forces an honest opponent to solve a computationally intractable problem to win. We mitigate this problem with a new recursive debate protocol that, under certain stability assumptions, ensures that an honest debater can win with a strategy requiring computational efficiency comparable to th

AI safety via debate uses two competing models to help a human judge verify complex computational tasks. Previous work has established what problems debate can solve in principle, but has not analysed the practical cost of human oversight: how many queries must the judge make to the debate transcript? We introduce Debate Query Complexity}(DQC), the minimum number of bits a verifier must inspect to correctly decide a debate. Surprisingly, we find that PSPACE/poly (the class of problems which debate can efficiently decide) is precisely the class of functions decidable with O(log n) queries. This characterisation shows that debate is remarkably query-efficient: even for highly complex problems, logarithmic oversight suffices. We also establish that functions depending on all their input bits require Omega(log n) queries, and that any function computable by a circuit of size s satisfies DQC(f) <= log(s) + 3. Interestingly, this last result implies that proving DQC lower bounds of log(n) + 6 for languages in P would yield new circuit lower bounds, connecting debate query complexity to central questions in circuit complexity.

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 where models learn from self-debate, equipping a single LLM with both strong standalone problem-solving ability and the capability to process 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 consist

In-depth analysis of competitive debates is essential for participants to develop argumentative skills and refine strategies, and further improve their debating performance. However, manual analysis of unstructured and unlabeled textual records of debating is time-consuming and ineffective, as it is challenging to reconstruct contextual semantics and track logical connections from raw data. To address this, we propose Conch, an interactive visualization system that systematically analyzes both what is debated and how it is debated. In particular, we propose a novel parallel spiral visualization that compactly traces the multidimensional evolution of clash points and participant interactions throughout debate process. In addition, we leverage large language models with well-designed prompts to automatically identify critical debate elements such as clash points, disagreements, viewpoints, and strategies, enabling participants to understand the debate context comprehensively. Finally, through two case studies on real-world debates and a carefully-designed user study, we demonstrate Conch's effectiveness and usability for competitive debate analysis.

Social media has evolved into a complex multimodal environment where text, images, and other signals interact to shape nuanced meanings, often concealing harmful intent. Identifying such intent, whether sarcasm, hate speech, or misinformation, remains challenging due to cross-modal contradictions, rapid cultural shifts, and subtle pragmatic cues. To address these challenges, we propose MV-Debate, a multi-view agent debate framework with dynamic reflection gating for unified multimodal harmful content detection. MV-Debate assembles four complementary debate agents, a surface analyst, a deep reasoner, a modality contrast, and a social contextualist, to analyze content from diverse interpretive perspectives. Through iterative debate and reflection, the agents refine responses under a reflection-gain criterion, ensuring both accuracy and efficiency. Experiments on three benchmark datasets demonstrate that MV-Debate significantly outperforms strong single-model and existing multi-agent debate baselines. This work highlights the promise of multi-agent debate in advancing reliable social intent detection in safety-critical online contexts.

Large language models (LLMs) have recently demonstrated impressive capabilities in reasoning tasks. Currently, mainstream LLM reasoning frameworks predominantly focus on scaling up inference-time sampling to enhance performance. In particular, among all LLM reasoning frameworks, *multi-agent debate* (MAD), which employs multiple LLMs as agents to perform reasoning in the way of multi-round debate, has emerged as a powerful reasoning paradigm since it allows agents to access previous memories to alleviate fallacious content and refine their reasoning iteratively in each debate round. However, although MAD significantly improves the reasoning capabilities of LLMs, in this paper, we observe that there remain erroneous memories, and LLM agents are vulnerable to these erroneous memories. To explore this phenomenon, we provide a theoretical insight that the performance of MAD is highly dependent on the quality of memories derived from the previous debate, indicating that the existence of erroneous memories poses a threat to the performance of MAD. To address this problem, we introduce a simple yet effective multi-agent debate framework, *multi-agent debate with memory masking* (MAD-M$^2$

Despite theoretical promise, debate as a scalable oversight protocol has produced mixed empirical results: gains in some settings, and null effects in others, especially when the judge does not have information hidden from it. We study proposer-critic debate in a stronger-debater/weaker-judge setting on programmatically verifiable code and logic tasks. Debate helps the judge over a consultancy baseline when the critic provides a usable advantage: the critic's classification ability must exceed the judge's, and the judge must treat critic speeches as claims to verify rather than testimony to summarize. On the three of five pairings where the condition holds, proposer-critic debate's gains are statistically significant over consultancy, and these pairings are the most capable model pairings. On the two non-responder pairings in our set, debate produces null effects, and judge verification rates drop by tens of percentage points once a critic enters the transcript. In these cases the critic's binary-classification ability and the judge's are within noise of each other, and the critic's disagreement is parsed as testimony rather than a claim to check. Ablating rebuttal rounds from deba

Recent progress at the intersection of large language models (LLMs) and time series (TS) analysis has revealed both promise and fragility. While LLMs can reason over temporal structure given carefully engineered context, they often struggle with numeric fidelity, modality interference, and principled cross-modal integration. We present TS-Debate, a modality-specialized, collaborative multi-agent debate framework for zero-shot time series reasoning. TS-Debate assigns dedicated expert agents to textual context, visual patterns, and numerical signals, preceded by explicit domain knowledge elicitation, and coordinates their interaction via a structured debate protocol. Reviewer agents evaluate agent claims using a verification-conflict-calibration mechanism, supported by lightweight code execution and numerical lookup for programmatic verification. This architecture preserves modality fidelity, exposes conflicting evidence, and mitigates numeric hallucinations without task-specific fine-tuning. Across 20 tasks spanning three public benchmarks, TS-Debate achieves consistent and significant performance improvements over strong baselines, including standard multimodal debate in which all

Nowadays, single Large Language Model (LLM) struggles with critical issues such as hallucination and inadequate reasoning abilities. To mitigate these issues, Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) has emerged as an effective strategy, where LLM agents engage in in-depth debates with others on tasks. However, existing MAD methods face two major issues: (a) too lengthy input contexts, which causes LLM agents to get lost in plenty of input information and experiences performance drop; and (b) the overconfidence dilemma, where self-assured LLM agents dominate the debate, leading to low debating effectiveness. To address these limitations, we propose a novel MAD method called "CortexDebate". Inspired by the human brain's tendency to establish a sparse and dynamically optimized network among cortical areas governed by white matter, CortexDebate constructs a sparse debating graph among LLM agents, where each LLM agent only debates with the ones that are helpful to it. To optimize the graph, we propose a module named McKinsey-based Debate Matter (MDM), which acts as an artificial analog to white matter. By integrating the McKinsey Trust Formula, a well-established measure of trustworthiness from sociol

Existing multi-agent debate frameworks suffer from two critical limitations: they rely on static architectures where agent roles and coordination patterns are fixed at design time, and they require instantiating multiple model copies, incurring substantial computational overhead. We propose Mixture of Debaters (MoD), a unified framework that enables dynamic self-debate within a single model by leveraging the Mixture-of-Experts paradigm. We address three key challenges in adapting MoE for dialectical reasoning: (1) dual-routing that decouples role allocation from process flow, dynamically determining when to debate versus when to synthesize; (2) momentum switching that smooths token-level routing with local context, reducing expert-switch jitter; and (3) unified self-debate that encapsulates diverse debating personas into lightweight expert modules, eliminating inter-agent communication while preserving behavioral diversity. Extensive experiments on multimodal benchmarks demonstrate that MoD outperforms both single-model baselines and conventional multi-agent systems, achieving superior accuracy with 3.7x lower latency and 87% reduction in token consumption.The source code can be ac

Entity alignment (EA) aims to identify entities referring to the same real-world object across different knowledge graphs (KGs). Recent approaches based on large language models (LLMs) typically obtain entity embeddings through knowledge representation learning and use embedding similarity to identify an alignment-uncertain entity set. For each uncertain entity, a candidate entity set (CES) is then retrieved based on embedding similarity to support subsequent alignment reasoning and decision making. However, the reliability of the CES and the reasoning capability of LLMs critically affect the effectiveness of subsequent alignment decisions. To address this issue, we propose AgentEA, a reliable EA framework based on multi-agent debate. AgentEA first improves embedding quality through entity representation preference optimization, and then introduces a two-stage multi-role debate mechanism consisting of lightweight debate verification and deep debate alignment to progressively enhance the reliability of alignment decisions while enabling more efficient debate-based reasoning. Extensive experiments on public benchmarks under cross-lingual, sparse, large-scale, and heterogeneous settin

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.

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://huggingface.co/spaces/

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 systematical

Understanding the internal thinking process of Large Language Models (LLMs) and the cause of hallucinations remains a key challenge. To this end, we introduce latent debate, a novel framework for interpreting model predictions through the lens of implicit internal arguments. Unlike the current work of self-consistency and multi-agent debate, which relies on explicit debates among multiple answers or multiple models, latent debate captures the hidden supporting and attacking signals that arise within a single model during a single inference. We first present a model- and task-agnostic conceptual framework, and then instantiate it symbolically to approximate the thinking process of LLMs on True/False prediction tasks. Empirical studies demonstrate that latent debate is a faithful structured surrogate model that has highly consistent predictions with the original LLM. Beyond interpretability, we demonstrate that latent debate provides a strong baseline for hallucination detection. Further analysis reveals strong correlations between hallucinations and debate patterns, such as a high degree of latent debates in the middle layers is linked to a higher risk of hallucinations. These findi