SocraSynth: Multi-LLM Reasoning with Conditional Statistics
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2402.06634v1
- Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2024 07:16:21 GMT
- Title: SocraSynth: Multi-LLM Reasoning with Conditional Statistics
- Authors: Edward Y. Chang
- Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) face criticisms for biases, hallucinations, and a lack of reasoning capability.
This paper introduces Socra Synth, a multi-LLM agent reasoning platform developed to mitigate these issues.
- Score: 2.5200794639628032
- License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
- Abstract: Large language models (LLMs), while promising, face criticisms for biases,
hallucinations, and a lack of reasoning capability. This paper introduces
SocraSynth, a multi-LLM agent reasoning platform developed to mitigate these
issues. SocraSynth utilizes conditional statistics and systematic context
enhancement through continuous arguments, alongside adjustable debate
contentiousness levels. The platform typically involves a human moderator and
two LLM agents representing opposing viewpoints on a given subject. SocraSynth
operates in two main phases: knowledge generation and reasoning evaluation. In
the knowledge generation phase, the moderator defines the debate topic and
contentiousness level, prompting the agents to formulate supporting arguments
for their respective stances. The reasoning evaluation phase then employs
Socratic reasoning and formal logic principles to appraise the quality of the
arguments presented. The dialogue concludes with the moderator adjusting the
contentiousness from confrontational to collaborative, gathering final,
conciliatory remarks to aid in human reasoning and decision-making. Through
case studies in three distinct application domains, this paper showcases
SocraSynth's effectiveness in fostering rigorous research, dynamic reasoning,
comprehensive assessment, and enhanced collaboration. This underscores the
value of multi-agent interactions in leveraging LLMs for advanced knowledge
extraction and decision-making support.
Related papers
- Argument Quality Assessment in the Age of Instruction-Following Large Language Models [45.832808321166844]
A critical task in any such application is the assessment of an argument's quality.
We identify the diversity of quality notions and the subjectiveness of their perception as the main hurdles towards substantial progress on argument quality assessment.
We argue that the capabilities of instruction-following large language models (LLMs) to leverage knowledge across contexts enable a much more reliable assessment.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-03-24T10:43:21Z) - An Empirical Analysis of Diversity in Argument Summarization [4.128725138940779]
We introduce three aspects of diversity: those of opinions, annotators, and sources.
We evaluate approaches to a popular argument summarization task called Key Point Analysis.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-02-02T16:26:52Z) - The Persuasive Power of Large Language Models [0.0]
We design a synthetic persuasion dialogue scenario on the topic of climate change.
A 'convincer' agent generates a persuasive argument for a'skeptic' agent, who subsequently assesses whether the argument changed its internal opinion state.
We ask human judges to evaluate the persuasiveness of machine-generated arguments.
Our findings suggest that artificial agents have the potential of playing an important role in collective processes of opinion formation in online social media.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-12-24T16:21:11Z) - Sentiment Analysis through LLM Negotiations [58.67939611291001]
A standard paradigm for sentiment analysis is to rely on a singular LLM and makes the decision in a single round.
This paper introduces a multi-LLM negotiation framework for sentiment analysis.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-11-03T12:35:29Z) - From Heuristic to Analytic: Cognitively Motivated Strategies for
Coherent Physical Commonsense Reasoning [66.98861219674039]
Heuristic-Analytic Reasoning (HAR) strategies drastically improve the coherence of rationalizations for model decisions.
Our findings suggest that human-like reasoning strategies can effectively improve the coherence and reliability of PLM reasoning.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-10-24T19:46:04Z) - A Unifying Framework for Learning Argumentation Semantics [50.69905074548764]
We present a novel framework, which uses an Inductive Logic Programming approach to learn the acceptability semantics for several abstract and structured argumentation frameworks in an interpretable way.
Our framework outperforms existing argumentation solvers, thus opening up new future research directions in the area of formal argumentation and human-machine dialogues.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-10-18T20:18:05Z) - Towards CausalGPT: A Multi-Agent Approach for Faithful Knowledge Reasoning via Promoting Causal Consistency in LLMs [60.244412212130264]
Causal-Consistency Chain-of-Thought harnesses multi-agent collaboration to bolster the faithfulness and causality of foundation models.
Our framework demonstrates significant superiority over state-of-the-art methods through extensive and comprehensive evaluations.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-08-23T04:59:21Z) - ChatEval: Towards Better LLM-based Evaluators through Multi-Agent Debate [57.71597869337909]
We build a multi-agent referee team called ChatEval to autonomously discuss and evaluate the quality of generated responses from different models.
Our analysis shows that ChatEval transcends mere textual scoring, offering a human-mimicking evaluation process for reliable assessments.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-08-14T15:13:04Z) - DiPlomat: A Dialogue Dataset for Situated Pragmatic Reasoning [89.92601337474954]
Pragmatic reasoning plays a pivotal role in deciphering implicit meanings that frequently arise in real-life conversations.
We introduce a novel challenge, DiPlomat, aiming at benchmarking machines' capabilities on pragmatic reasoning and situated conversational understanding.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-06-15T10:41:23Z)
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.