MV-Debate: Multi-view Agent Debate with Dynamic Reflection Gating for Multimodal Harmful Content Detection in Social Media

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2508.05557v3
• Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2025 09:23:23 GMT
• Title: MV-Debate: Multi-view Agent Debate with Dynamic Reflection Gating for Multimodal Harmful Content Detection in Social Media
• Authors: Rui Lu, Jinhe Bi, Yunpu Ma, Feng Xiao, Yuntao Du, Yijun Tian,
• Abstract summary: MV-Debate is a multi-view agent debate framework with dynamic reflection gating for unified multimodal harmful content detection.<n>MV-Debate assembles four complementary debate agents, a surface analyst, a deep reasoner, a modality contrast, and a social contextualist, to analyze content from diverse interpretive perspectives.
• Score: 26.07883439550861
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Social media has evolved into a complex multimodal environment where text, images, and other signals interact to shape nuanced meanings, often concealing harmful intent. Identifying such intent, whether sarcasm, hate speech, or misinformation, remains challenging due to cross-modal contradictions, rapid cultural shifts, and subtle pragmatic cues. To address these challenges, we propose MV-Debate, a multi-view agent debate framework with dynamic reflection gating for unified multimodal harmful content detection. MV-Debate assembles four complementary debate agents, a surface analyst, a deep reasoner, a modality contrast, and a social contextualist, to analyze content from diverse interpretive perspectives. Through iterative debate and reflection, the agents refine responses under a reflection-gain criterion, ensuring both accuracy and efficiency. Experiments on three benchmark datasets demonstrate that MV-Debate significantly outperforms strong single-model and existing multi-agent debate baselines. This work highlights the promise of multi-agent debate in advancing reliable social intent detection in safety-critical online contexts.

Related papers

• TS-Debate: Multimodal Collaborative Debate for Zero-Shot Time Series Reasoning [44.59910717749994]
  We present TS-Debate, a modality-specialized, collaborative multi-agent debate framework for zero-shot time series reasoning.<n>TS-Debate assigns dedicated expert agents to textual context, visual patterns, and numerical signals, preceded by explicit domain knowledge elicitation.<n>Reviewer agents evaluate agent claims using a verification-conflict-calibration mechanism, supported by lightweight code execution and numerical lookup.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-27T03:29:22Z)
• DynaDebate: Breaking Homogeneity in Multi-Agent Debate with Dynamic Path Generation [47.62978918069135]
  We introduce Dynamic Multi-Agent Debate (DynaDebate), which enhances the effectiveness of multi-agent debate through three key mechanisms.<n>Extensive experiments demonstrate that DynaDebate achieves superior performance across various benchmarks, surpassing existing state-of-the-art MAD methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-09T12:01:33Z)
• DEBATE: A Large-Scale Benchmark for Role-Playing LLM Agents in Multi-Agent, Long-Form Debates [10.609797175227644]
  We introduce DEBATE, the first large-scale empirical benchmark to evaluate the authenticity of the interaction between multi-agent role-playing LLMs.<n>We systematically evaluate and identify critical discrepancies between simulated and authentic group dynamics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-29T02:21:10Z)
• MADIAVE: Multi-Agent Debate for Implicit Attribute Value Extraction [52.89860691282002]
  Implicit Attribute Value Extraction (AVE) is essential for accurately representing products in e-commerce.<n>Despite advances in multimodal large language models (MLLMs), implicit AVE remains challenging due to the complexity of multidimensional data.<n>We introduce textscmodelname, a multi-agent debate framework that employs multiple MLLM agents to iteratively refine inferences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-07T06:27:42Z)
• The Hunger Game Debate: On the Emergence of Over-Competition in Multi-Agent Systems [90.96738882568224]
  This paper investigates the over-competition in multi-agent debate, where agents under extreme pressure exhibit unreliable, harmful behaviors.<n>To study this phenomenon, we propose HATE, a novel experimental framework that simulates debates under a zero-sum competition arena.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-30T11:44:47Z)
• Disagreements in Reasoning: How a Model's Thinking Process Dictates Persuasion in Multi-Agent Systems [49.69773210844221]
  This paper challenges the prevailing hypothesis that persuasive efficacy is primarily a function of model scale.<n>Through a series of multi-agent persuasion experiments, we uncover a fundamental trade-off we term the Persuasion Duality.<n>Our findings reveal that the reasoning process in LRMs exhibits significantly greater resistance to persuasion, maintaining their initial beliefs more robustly.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-25T12:03:10Z)
• Talk Isn't Always Cheap: Understanding Failure Modes in Multi-Agent Debate [2.3027211055417283]
  We show that debate can lead to a decrease in accuracy over time.<n>Our analysis reveals that models frequently shift from correct to incorrect answers in response to peer reasoning.<n>These results highlight important failure modes in the exchange of reasons during multi-agent debate.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-05T13:47:38Z)
• CortexDebate: Debating Sparsely and Equally for Multi-Agent Debate [11.155092859033784]
  Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) has emerged as an effective strategy to mitigate issues with single Large Language Model (LLM)<n>Existing MAD methods face two major issues: (a) too lengthy input contexts, which causes LLM agents to get lost in plenty of input information and experiences performance drop; and (b) the overconfidence dilemma, where self-assured LLM agents dominate the debate, leading to low debating effectiveness.<n>We propose a novel MAD method called "CortexDebate", inspired by the human brain's tendency to establish a sparse and dynamically optimized network among cortical areas governed by white matter.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-05T07:23:15Z)
• An Empirical Study of Group Conformity in Multi-Agent Systems [0.26999000177990923]
  This study explores how Large Language Models (LLMs) agents shape public opinion through debates on five contentious topics.<n>By simulating over 2,500 debates, we analyze how initially neutral agents, assigned a centrist disposition, adopt specific stances over time.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-02T05:22:29Z)
• Debating for Better Reasoning: An Unsupervised Multimodal Approach [56.74157117060815]
  We extend the debate paradigm to a multimodal setting, exploring its potential for weaker models to supervise and enhance the performance of stronger models.<n>We focus on visual question answering (VQA), where two "sighted" expert vision-language models debate an answer, while a "blind" (text-only) judge adjudicates based solely on the quality of the arguments.<n>In our framework, the experts defend only answers aligned with their beliefs, thereby obviating the need for explicit role-playing and concentrating the debate on instances of expert disagreement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-20T17:18:17Z)
• The Truth Becomes Clearer Through Debate! Multi-Agent Systems with Large Language Models Unmask Fake News [39.260570381498866]
  TruEDebate (TED) is a novel multi-agent system for detecting fake news on social networks.<n>TED employs a rigorous debate process inspired by formal debate settings.<n>The DebateFlow Agents organize agents into two teams, where one supports and the other challenges the truth of the news.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-13T13:03:20Z)
• Multi-Agent Large Language Models for Conversational Task-Solving [0.0]
  Multi-agent systems arise as new protagonists in conversational task-solving. It remains unascertained how multi-agent discussions perform across tasks of varying complexity. I propose a taxonomy of 20 multi-agent research studies from 2022 to 2024.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-30T11:38:13Z)
• PanoSent: A Panoptic Sextuple Extraction Benchmark for Multimodal Conversational Aspect-based Sentiment Analysis [74.41260927676747]
  This paper bridges the gaps by introducing a multimodal conversational Sentiment Analysis (ABSA) To benchmark the tasks, we construct PanoSent, a dataset annotated both manually and automatically, featuring high quality, large scale, multimodality, multilingualism, multi-scenarios, and covering both implicit and explicit sentiment elements. To effectively address the tasks, we devise a novel Chain-of-Sentiment reasoning framework, together with a novel multimodal large language model (namely Sentica) and a paraphrase-based verification mechanism.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-18T13:51:01Z)
• Cantor: Inspiring Multimodal Chain-of-Thought of MLLM [83.6663322930814]
  We argue that converging visual context acquisition and logical reasoning is pivotal for tackling visual reasoning tasks. We propose an innovative multimodal CoT framework, termed Cantor, characterized by a perception-decision architecture. Our experiments demonstrate the efficacy of the proposed framework, showing significant improvements in multimodal CoT performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-24T17:59:48Z)
• Recent Advances in Hate Speech Moderation: Multimodality and the Role of Large Models [52.24001776263608]
  This comprehensive survey delves into the recent strides in HS moderation. We highlight the burgeoning role of large language models (LLMs) and large multimodal models (LMMs) We identify existing gaps in research, particularly in the context of underrepresented languages and cultures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-30T03:51:44Z)
• Learning to Break: Knowledge-Enhanced Reasoning in Multi-Agent Debate System [16.830182915504555]
  Multi-agent debate system (MAD) imitates the process of human discussion in pursuit of truth. It is challenging to make various agents perform right and highly consistent cognition due to their limited and different knowledge backgrounds. We propose a novel underlineMulti-underlineAgent underlineDebate with underlineKnowledge-underlineEnhanced framework to promote the system to find the solution.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-08T06:22:12Z)
• 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)
• 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)

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.