MADIAVE: Multi-Agent Debate for Implicit Attribute Value Extraction

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2510.05611v1
• Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2025 06:27:42 GMT
• Title: MADIAVE: Multi-Agent Debate for Implicit Attribute Value Extraction
• Authors: Wei-Chieh Huang, Cornelia Caragea,
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 52.89860691282002
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Implicit Attribute Value Extraction (AVE) is essential for accurately representing products in e-commerce, as it infers lantent attributes from multimodal data. Despite advances in multimodal large language models (MLLMs), implicit AVE remains challenging due to the complexity of multidimensional data and gaps in vision-text understanding. In this work, we introduce \textsc{\modelname}, a multi-agent debate framework that employs multiple MLLM agents to iteratively refine inferences. Through a series of debate rounds, agents verify and update each other's responses, thereby improving inference performance and robustness. Experiments on the ImplicitAVE dataset demonstrate that even a few rounds of debate significantly boost accuracy, especially for attributes with initially low performance. We systematically evaluate various debate configurations, including identical or different MLLM agents, and analyze how debate rounds affect convergence dynamics. Our findings highlight the potential of multi-agent debate strategies to address the limitations of single-agent approaches and offer a scalable solution for implicit AVE in multimodal e-commerce.

Related papers

• PENDULUM: A Benchmark for Assessing Sycophancy in Multimodal Large Language Models [43.767942065379366]
  Sycophancy is a tendency of AI models to agree with user input at the expense of factual accuracy or in contradiction of visual evidence.<n>We introduce a comprehensive evaluation benchmark, textitPENDULUM, comprising approximately 2,000 human-curated Visual Question Answering pairs.<n>We observe substantial variability in model robustness and a pronounced susceptibility to sycophantic and hallucinatory behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-22T12:49:12Z)
• WISE: Weighted Iterative Society-of-Experts for Robust Multimodal Multi-Agent Debate [31.549907845278327]
  Multi-agent debate (MAD) has emerged as a popular way to leverage these strengths for robust reasoning.<n>Our setup enables generalizing the debate protocol with heterogeneous experts that possess single- and multi-modal capabilities.<n>We show that WISE consistently improves accuracy by 2-7% over state-of-the-art MAD setups and aggregation methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-02T04:31:52Z)
• SID: Multi-LLM Debate Driven by Self Signals [17.45752619450614]
  Self-Signals Driven Multi-LLM Debate (SID)<n>We introduce a Self-Signals Driven Multi-LLM Debate (SID)<n>Our approach enables high-confidence agents to exit early at the model level and compress the redundant debate contents based on the attention mechanism.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-08T10:10:11Z)
• Explaining multimodal LLMs via intra-modal token interactions [55.27436637894534]
  Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have achieved remarkable success across diverse vision-language tasks, yet their internal decision-making mechanisms remain insufficiently understood.<n>We propose enhancing interpretability by leveraging intra-modal interaction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-26T14:39:13Z)
• Test-Time Scaling Strategies for Generative Retrieval in Multimodal Conversational Recommendations [70.94563079082751]
  E-commerce has exposed the limitations of traditional product retrieval systems in managing complex, multi-turn user interactions.<n>We propose a novel framework that introduces test-time scaling into conversational multimodal product retrieval.<n>Our approach builds on a generative retriever, further augmented with a test-time reranking mechanism that improves retrieval accuracy and better aligns results with evolving user intent throughout the dialogue.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-25T15:38:56Z)
• MV-Debate: Multi-view Agent Debate with Dynamic Reflection Gating for Multimodal Harmful Content Detection in Social Media [26.07883439550861]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-07T16:38:25Z)
• Rethinking Information Synthesis in Multimodal Question Answering A Multi-Agent Perspective [42.832839189236694]
  We propose MAMMQA, a multi-agent QA framework for multimodal inputs spanning text, tables, and images.<n>Our system includes two Visual Language Model (VLM) agents and one text-based Large Language Model (LLM) agent.<n> Experiments on diverse multimodal QA benchmarks demonstrate that our cooperative, multi-agent framework consistently outperforms existing baselines in both accuracy and robustness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-27T07:23:38Z)
• Benchmarking Retrieval-Augmented Generation in Multi-Modal Contexts [56.7225771305861]
  This paper introduces Multi-Modal Retrieval-Augmented Generation (M$2$RAG), a benchmark designed to evaluate the effectiveness of Multi-modal Large Language Models.<n>The benchmark comprises four tasks: image captioning, multi-modal question answering, multi-modal fact verification, and image reranking.<n>To enhance the context utilization capabilities of MLLMs, we also introduce Multi-Modal Retrieval-Augmented Instruction Tuning (MM-RAIT)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-24T16:25:25Z)
• 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)
• Visual Reasoning and Multi-Agent Approach in Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs): Solving TSP and mTSP Combinatorial Challenges [5.934258790280767]
  Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) harness comprehensive knowledge spanning text, images, and audio to adeptly tackle complex problems. This study explores the ability of MLLMs in visually solving the Traveling Salesman Problem (TSP) and Multiple Traveling Salesman Problem (mTSP) We introduce a novel approach employing multiple specialized agents within the MLLM framework, each dedicated to optimizing solutions for these challenges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-26T07:12:06Z)
• DialCLIP: Empowering CLIP as Multi-Modal Dialog Retriever [83.33209603041013]
  We propose a parameter-efficient prompt-tuning method named DialCLIP for multi-modal dialog retrieval. Our approach introduces a multi-modal context generator to learn context features which are distilled into prompts within the pre-trained vision-language model CLIP. To facilitate various types of retrieval, we also design multiple experts to learn mappings from CLIP outputs to multi-modal representation space.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-02T07:40:12Z)
• 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.