Debatrix: Multi-dimensional Debate Judge with Iterative Chronological Analysis Based on LLM

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2403.08010v3
• Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2024 19:39:42 GMT
• Title: Debatrix: Multi-dimensional Debate Judge with Iterative Chronological Analysis Based on LLM
• Authors: Jingcong Liang, Rong Ye, Meng Han, Ruofei Lai, Xinyu Zhang, Xuanjing Huang, Zhongyu Wei,
• Abstract summary: Debatrix is an automated debate judge based on Large Language Models (LLMs) To align with real-world debate scenarios, we introduced the PanelBench benchmark, comparing our system's performance to actual debate outcomes. The findings indicate a notable enhancement over directly using LLMs for debate evaluation.
• Score: 51.43102092480804
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: How can we construct an automated debate judge to evaluate an extensive, vibrant, multi-turn debate? This task is challenging, as judging a debate involves grappling with lengthy texts, intricate argument relationships, and multi-dimensional assessments. At the same time, current research mainly focuses on short dialogues, rarely touching upon the evaluation of an entire debate. In this paper, by leveraging Large Language Models (LLMs), we propose Debatrix, which makes the analysis and assessment of multi-turn debates more aligned with majority preferences. Specifically, Debatrix features a vertical, iterative chronological analysis and a horizontal, multi-dimensional evaluation collaboration. To align with real-world debate scenarios, we introduced the PanelBench benchmark, comparing our system's performance to actual debate outcomes. The findings indicate a notable enhancement over directly using LLMs for debate evaluation. Source code and benchmark data are available online at https://github.com/ljcleo/debatrix .

Related papers

• ACC-Debate: An Actor-Critic Approach to Multi-Agent Debate [20.040543142468344]
  We propose ACC-Debate, an Actor-Critic based learning framework to produce a two-agent team specialized in debate. We demonstrate that ACC-Debate outperforms SotA debate techniques on a wide array of benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-30T19:09:02Z)
• Training Language Models to Win Debates with Self-Play Improves Judge Accuracy [8.13173791334223]
  We test the robustness of debate as a method of scalable oversight by training models to debate with data generated via self-play. We find that language model based evaluators answer questions more accurately when judging models optimized to win debates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-25T05:28:33Z)
• Can LLMs Beat Humans in Debating? A Dynamic Multi-agent Framework for Competitive Debate [22.813887723656023]
  Agent for Debate (Agent4Debate) is a dynamic multi-agent framework based on Large Language Models (LLMs) 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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-08T14:02:45Z)
• On scalable oversight with weak LLMs judging strong LLMs [67.8628575615614]
  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. 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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-05T16:29:15Z)
• Peer Review as A Multi-Turn and Long-Context Dialogue with Role-Based Interactions [62.0123588983514]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated wide-ranging applications across various fields. We reformulate the peer-review process as a multi-turn, long-context dialogue, incorporating distinct roles for authors, reviewers, and decision makers. We construct a comprehensive dataset containing over 26,841 papers with 92,017 reviews collected from multiple sources.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-09T08:24:17Z)
• Argue with Me Tersely: Towards Sentence-Level Counter-Argument Generation [62.069374456021016]
  We present the ArgTersely benchmark for sentence-level counter-argument generation. We also propose Arg-LlaMA for generating high-quality counter-argument.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-21T06:51:34Z)
• Large Language Models are Diverse Role-Players for Summarization Evaluation [82.31575622685902]
  A document summary's quality can be assessed by human annotators on various criteria, both objective ones like grammar and correctness, and subjective ones like informativeness, succinctness, and appeal. Most of the automatic evaluation methods like BLUE/ROUGE may be not able to adequately capture the above dimensions. We propose a new evaluation framework based on LLMs, which provides a comprehensive evaluation framework by comparing generated text and reference text from both objective and subjective aspects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-27T10:40:59Z)
• DEBACER: a method for slicing moderated debates [55.705662163385966]
  Partitioning debates into blocks with the same subject is essential for understanding. We propose a new algorithm, DEBACER, which partitions moderated debates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-10T10:39:07Z)
• High Quality Real-Time Structured Debate Generation [0.0]
  We define debate trees and paths for generating debates while enforcing a high level structure and grammar. We leverage a large corpus of tree-structured debates that have metadata associated with each argument. Our results demonstrate the ability to generate debates in real-time on complex topics at a quality that is close to humans.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-01T01:39:38Z)
• DebateSum: A large-scale argument mining and summarization dataset [0.0]
  DebateSum consists of 187,386 unique pieces of evidence with corresponding argument and extractive summaries. We train several transformer summarization models to benchmark summarization performance on DebateSum. We present a search engine for this dataset which is utilized extensively by members of the National Speech and Debate Association.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-14T10:06:57Z)

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.