Multi-Agent Debate Strategies to Enhance Requirements Engineering with Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2507.05981v1
• Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2025 13:37:59 GMT
• Title: Multi-Agent Debate Strategies to Enhance Requirements Engineering with Large Language Models
• Authors: Marc Oriol, Quim Motger, Jordi Marco, Xavier Franch,
• Abstract summary: Large Language Model (LLM) agents are becoming widely used for various Requirements Engineering (RE) tasks.<n>Research on improving their accuracy mainly focuses on prompt engineering, model fine-tuning, and retrieval augmented generation.<n>We propose that just as human debates enhance accuracy and reduce bias in RE tasks by incorporating diverse perspectives, different LLM agents debating and collaborating may achieve similar improvements.
• Score: 3.4829662575293585
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Context: Large Language Model (LLM) agents are becoming widely used for various Requirements Engineering (RE) tasks. Research on improving their accuracy mainly focuses on prompt engineering, model fine-tuning, and retrieval augmented generation. However, these methods often treat models as isolated black boxes - relying on single-pass outputs without iterative refinement or collaboration, limiting robustness and adaptability. Objective: We propose that, just as human debates enhance accuracy and reduce bias in RE tasks by incorporating diverse perspectives, different LLM agents debating and collaborating may achieve similar improvements. Our goal is to investigate whether Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) strategies can enhance RE performance. Method: We conducted a systematic study of existing MAD strategies across various domains to identify their key characteristics. To assess their applicability in RE, we implemented and tested a preliminary MAD-based framework for RE classification. Results: Our study identified and categorized several MAD strategies, leading to a taxonomy outlining their core attributes. Our preliminary evaluation demonstrated the feasibility of applying MAD to RE classification. Conclusions: MAD presents a promising approach for improving LLM accuracy in RE tasks. This study provides a foundational understanding of MAD strategies, offering insights for future research and refinements in RE applications.

Related papers

• Revisiting Multi-Agent Debate as Test-Time Scaling: A Systematic Study of Conditional Effectiveness [50.29739337771454]
  Multi-agent debate (MAD) approaches offer improved reasoning, robustness, and diverse perspectives over monolithic models.<n>This paper conceptualizes MAD as a test-time computational scaling technique, distinguished by collaborative refinement and diverse exploration capabilities.<n>We conduct a comprehensive empirical investigation comparing MAD with strong self-agent test-time scaling baselines on mathematical reasoning and safety-related tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-29T01:02:55Z)
• Reinforcing Question Answering Agents with Minimalist Policy Gradient Optimization [80.09112808413133]
  Mujica is a planner that decomposes questions into acyclic graph of subquestions and a worker that resolves questions via retrieval and reasoning.<n>MyGO is a novel reinforcement learning method that replaces traditional policy updates with gradient Likelihood Maximum Estimation.<n> Empirical results across multiple datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of MujicaMyGO in enhancing multi-hop QA performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-20T18:33:03Z)
• ReMA: Learning to Meta-think for LLMs with Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning [53.817538122688944]
  We introduce Reinforced Meta-thinking Agents (ReMA) to elicit meta-thinking behaviors from Reasoning of Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>ReMA decouples the reasoning process into two hierarchical agents: a high-level meta-thinking agent responsible for generating strategic oversight and plans, and a low-level reasoning agent for detailed executions.<n> Empirical results from single-turn experiments demonstrate that ReMA outperforms single-agent RL baselines on complex reasoning tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-12T16:05:31Z)
• Stop Overvaluing Multi-Agent Debate -- We Must Rethink Evaluation and Embrace Model Heterogeneity [20.408720462383158]
  Multi-agent debate (MAD) has gained significant attention as a promising line of research to improve the factual accuracy and reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs)<n>Despite its conceptual appeal, current MAD research suffers from critical limitations in evaluation practices.<n>This paper presents a systematic evaluation of 5 representative MAD methods across 9 benchmarks using 4 foundational models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-12T21:01:10Z)
• Progressive Multimodal Reasoning via Active Retrieval [64.74746997923967]
  Multi-step multimodal reasoning tasks pose significant challenges for large language models (MLLMs)<n>We propose AR-MCTS, a universal framework designed to progressively improve the reasoning capabilities of MLLMs.<n>We show that AR-MCTS can optimize sampling diversity and accuracy, yielding reliable multimodal reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-19T13:25:39Z)
• Meta Reasoning for Large Language Models [58.87183757029041]
  We introduce Meta-Reasoning Prompting (MRP), a novel and efficient system prompting method for large language models (LLMs) MRP guides LLMs to dynamically select and apply different reasoning methods based on the specific requirements of each task. We evaluate the effectiveness of MRP through comprehensive benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-17T16:14:11Z)
• 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)

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.