On the Discussion of Large Language Models: Symmetry of Agents and Interplay with Prompts

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2311.07076v1
• Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2023 04:56:48 GMT
• Title: On the Discussion of Large Language Models: Symmetry of Agents and Interplay with Prompts
• Authors: Qineng Wang, Zihao Wang, Ying Su, Yangqiu Song
• Abstract summary: This paper reports the empirical results of the interplay of prompts and discussion mechanisms. It also proposes a scalable discussion mechanism based on conquer and merge.
• Score: 51.3324922038486
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Two ways has been discussed to unlock the reasoning capability of a large language model. The first one is prompt engineering and the second one is to combine the multiple inferences of large language models, or the multi-agent discussion. Theoretically, this paper justifies the multi-agent discussion mechanisms from the symmetry of agents. Empirically, this paper reports the empirical results of the interplay of prompts and discussion mechanisms, revealing the empirical state-of-the-art performance of complex multi-agent mechanisms can be approached by carefully developed prompt engineering. This paper also proposes a scalable discussion mechanism based on conquer and merge, providing a simple multi-agent discussion solution with simple prompts but state-of-the-art performance.

Related papers

• Multi-Agent Large Language Models for Conversational Task-Solving [0.0]
  Multi-agent systems arise as new protagonists in conversational task-solving. It remains unascertained how multi-agent discussions perform across tasks of varying complexity. I propose a taxonomy of 20 multi-agent research studies from 2022 to 2024.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-30T11:38:13Z)
• Rethinking the Bounds of LLM Reasoning: Are Multi-Agent Discussions the Key? [84.36332588191623]
  We propose a novel group discussion framework to enrich the set of discussion mechanisms. We observe that the multi-agent discussion performs better than a single agent only when there is no demonstration in the prompt.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-28T12:04:05Z)
• Combating Adversarial Attacks with Multi-Agent Debate [4.450536872346658]
  We implement multi-agent debate between current state-of-the-art language models and evaluate models' susceptibility to red team attacks. We find that multi-agent debate can reduce model toxicity when jailbroken or less capable models are forced to debate with non-jailbroken or more capable models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-11T15:57:38Z)
• Igniting Language Intelligence: The Hitchhiker's Guide From Chain-of-Thought Reasoning to Language Agents [80.5213198675411]
  Large language models (LLMs) have dramatically enhanced the field of language intelligence. LLMs leverage the intriguing chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning techniques, obliging them to formulate intermediate steps en route to deriving an answer. Recent research endeavors have extended CoT reasoning methodologies to nurture the development of autonomous language agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-20T14:30:55Z)
• DUMA: a Dual-Mind Conversational Agent with Fast and Slow Thinking [12.71072798544731]
  DUMA embodies a dual-mind mechanism through the utilization of two generative Large Language Models (LLMs) dedicated to fast and slow thinking respectively. We have constructed a conversational agent to handle online inquiries in the real estate industry.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-27T11:43:46Z)
• Improving Factuality and Reasoning in Language Models through Multiagent Debate [95.10641301155232]
  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. Our approach may be directly applied to existing black-box models and uses identical procedure and prompts for all tasks we investigate.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T17:55:11Z)
• Multimodal Chain-of-Thought Reasoning in Language Models [94.70184390935661]
  We propose Multimodal-CoT that incorporates language (text) and vision (images) modalities into a two-stage framework. Experimental results on ScienceQA and A-OKVQA benchmark datasets show the effectiveness of our proposed approach.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-02T07:51:19Z)
• Towards Preserving Semantic Structure in Argumentative Multi-Agent via Abstract Interpretation [0.0]
  We investigate the notion of abstraction from the model-checking perspective. Several arguments are trying to defend the same position from various points of view, thereby reducing the size of the argumentation framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-28T21:32:52Z)
• Filling the Gap of Utterance-aware and Speaker-aware Representation for Multi-turn Dialogue [76.88174667929665]
  A multi-turn dialogue is composed of multiple utterances from two or more different speaker roles. In the existing retrieval-based multi-turn dialogue modeling, the pre-trained language models (PrLMs) as encoder represent the dialogues coarsely. We propose a novel model to fill such a gap by modeling the effective utterance-aware and speaker-aware representations entailed in a dialogue history.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-09-14T15:07:19Z)
• Numerical Abstract Persuasion Argumentation for Expressing Concurrent Multi-Agent Negotiations [3.7311680121118336]
  A negotiation process by 2 agents e1 and e2 can be interleaved by another negotiation process between, say, e1 and e3. Existing proposals for argumentation-based negotiations have focused primarily on two-agent bilateral negotiations. We show that the extended theory adapts well to concurrent multi-agent negotiations over scarce resources.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-01-23T01:46:58Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.