If Multi-Agent Debate is the Answer, What is the Question?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.08788v2
• Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2025 20:28:35 GMT
• Title: If Multi-Agent Debate is the Answer, What is the Question?
• Authors: Hangfan Zhang, Zhiyao Cui, Xinrun Wang, Qiaosheng Zhang, Zhen Wang, Dinghao Wu, Shuyue Hu,
• Abstract summary: Multi-agent debate (MAD) has emerged as a promising approach to enhance the factual accuracy and reasoning quality of large language models. Despite its potential, MAD research suffers from critical shortcomings in evaluation practices. This paper presents a systematic evaluation of five representative MAD methods across nine benchmarks.
• Score: 19.246022410492692
• License:
• Abstract: Multi-agent debate (MAD) has emerged as a promising approach to enhance the factual accuracy and reasoning quality of large language models (LLMs) by engaging multiple agents in iterative discussions during inference. Despite its potential, we argue that current MAD research suffers from critical shortcomings in evaluation practices, including limited dataset overlap and inconsistent baselines, raising significant concerns about generalizability. Correspondingly, this paper presents a systematic evaluation of five representative MAD methods across nine benchmarks using four foundational models. Surprisingly, our findings reveal that MAD methods fail to reliably outperform simple single-agent baselines such as Chain-of-Thought and Self-Consistency, even when consuming additional inference-time computation. From our analysis, we found that model heterogeneity can significantly improve MAD frameworks. We propose Heter-MAD enabling a single LLM agent to access the output from heterogeneous foundation models, which boosts the performance of current MAD frameworks. Finally, we outline potential directions for advancing MAD, aiming to spark a broader conversation and inspire future work in this area.

Related papers

• LlaMADRS: Prompting Large Language Models for Interview-Based Depression Assessment [75.44934940580112]
  This study introduces LlaMADRS, a novel framework leveraging open-source Large Language Models (LLMs) to automate depression severity assessment. We employ a zero-shot prompting strategy with carefully designed cues to guide the model in interpreting and scoring transcribed clinical interviews. Our approach, tested on 236 real-world interviews, demonstrates strong correlations with clinician assessments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-07T08:49:04Z)
• M-MAD: Multidimensional Multi-Agent Debate for Advanced Machine Translation Evaluation [12.042804590050089]
  Multidimensional Multi-Agent Debate (M-MAD) is a systematic LLM-based multi-agent framework for advanced machine translation evaluation. Our findings demonstrate that M-MAD achieves significant advancements by (1) decoupling MQM criteria into distinct evaluation dimensions for fine-grained assessments. Comprehensive experiments show that M-MAD not only outperforms all existing LLM-as-a-judge methods but also competes with state-of-the-art reference-based automatic metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-28T12:11:28Z)
• MR-Ben: A Meta-Reasoning Benchmark for Evaluating System-2 Thinking in LLMs [55.20845457594977]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown increasing capability in problem-solving and decision-making. We present a process-based benchmark MR-Ben that demands a meta-reasoning skill. Our meta-reasoning paradigm is especially suited for system-2 slow thinking.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T03:50:23Z)
• Look Before You Decide: Prompting Active Deduction of MLLMs for Assumptive Reasoning [68.83624133567213]
  We show that most prevalent MLLMs can be easily fooled by the introduction of a presupposition into the question. We also propose a simple yet effective method, Active Deduction (AD), to encourage the model to actively perform composite deduction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-19T15:53:27Z)
• Large Multimodal Agents: A Survey [78.81459893884737]
  Large language models (LLMs) have achieved superior performance in powering text-based AI agents. There is an emerging research trend focused on extending these LLM-powered AI agents into the multimodal domain. This review aims to provide valuable insights and guidelines for future research in this rapidly evolving field.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-23T06:04:23Z)
• Should we be going MAD? A Look at Multi-Agent Debate Strategies for LLMs [7.7433783185451075]
  We benchmark a range of debating and prompting strategies to explore the trade-offs between cost, time, and accuracy. We find that multi-agent debating systems, in their current form, do not reliably outperform other proposed prompting strategies. We build on these results to offer insights into improving debating strategies, such as adjusting agent agreement levels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-29T05:54:41Z)
• 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)
• 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)

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.