Can LLMs Beat Humans in Debating? A Dynamic Multi-agent Framework for Competitive Debate

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2408.04472v2
• Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2024 12:36:06 GMT
• Title: Can LLMs Beat Humans in Debating? A Dynamic Multi-agent Framework for Competitive Debate
• Authors: Yiqun Zhang, Xiaocui Yang, Shi Feng, Daling Wang, Yifei Zhang, Kaisong Song,
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 22.813887723656023
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: 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.

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)
• GroupDebate: Enhancing the Efficiency of Multi-Agent Debate Using Group Discussion [8.948702488582583]
  This paper proposes a method to significantly reduce token cost in multi-agent debates. Our method significantly enhances the performance and efficiency of interactions in the multi-agent debate.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-21T07:49:38Z)
• 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)
• Debatrix: Multi-dimensional Debate Judge with Iterative Chronological Analysis Based on LLM [51.43102092480804]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-12T18:19:47Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Encouraging Divergent Thinking in Large Language Models through Multi-Agent Debate [85.3444184685235]
  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. Our framework encourages divergent thinking in LLMs which would be helpful for tasks that require deep levels of contemplation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-30T15:25:45Z)
• 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)
• Moody Learners -- Explaining Competitive Behaviour of Reinforcement Learning Agents [65.2200847818153]
  In a competitive scenario, the agent does not only have a dynamic environment but also is directly affected by the opponents' actions. Observing the Q-values of the agent is usually a way of explaining its behavior, however, do not show the temporal-relation between the selected actions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-30T11:30:42Z)

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.