Modeling Hawkish-Dovish Latent Beliefs in Multi-Agent Debate-Based LLMs for Monetary Policy Decision Classification

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2511.02469v1
• Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2025 10:56:01 GMT
• Title: Modeling Hawkish-Dovish Latent Beliefs in Multi-Agent Debate-Based LLMs for Monetary Policy Decision Classification
• Authors: Kaito Takano, Masanori Hirano, Kei Nakagawa,
• Abstract summary: This study proposes a novel framework that structurally imitates the Federal Open Market Committee's collective decision-making process.<n>Each agent begins with a distinct initial belief and produces a prediction based on both qualitative policy texts and quantitative macroeconomic indicators.<n>Through iterative rounds, agents revise their predictions by observing the outputs of others, simulating deliberation and consensus formation.
• Score: 0.8666275811953877
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Accurately forecasting central bank policy decisions, particularly those of the Federal Open Market Committee(FOMC) has become increasingly important amid heightened economic uncertainty. While prior studies have used monetary policy texts to predict rate changes, most rely on static classification models that overlook the deliberative nature of policymaking. This study proposes a novel framework that structurally imitates the FOMC's collective decision-making process by modeling multiple large language models(LLMs) as interacting agents. Each agent begins with a distinct initial belief and produces a prediction based on both qualitative policy texts and quantitative macroeconomic indicators. Through iterative rounds, agents revise their predictions by observing the outputs of others, simulating deliberation and consensus formation. To enhance interpretability, we introduce a latent variable representing each agent's underlying belief(e.g., hawkish or dovish), and we theoretically demonstrate how this belief mediates the perception of input information and interaction dynamics. Empirical results show that this debate-based approach significantly outperforms standard LLMs-based baselines in prediction accuracy. Furthermore, the explicit modeling of beliefs provides insights into how individual perspectives and social influence shape collective policy forecasts.

Related papers

• When Modalities Conflict: How Unimodal Reasoning Uncertainty Governs Preference Dynamics in MLLMs [15.617378124319472]
  Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) must resolve conflicts when different modalities provide contradictory information.<n>We introduce a new framework that decomposes modality following into two fundamental factors: relative reasoning uncertainty and inherent modality preference.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-04T04:11:31Z)
• Variational Reasoning for Language Models [93.08197299751197]
  We introduce a variational reasoning framework for language models that treats thinking traces as latent variables.<n>We show that rejection sampling finetuning and binary-reward RL, including GRPO, can be interpreted as local forward-KL objectives.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-26T17:58:10Z)
• Capturing Opinion Shifts in Deliberative Discourse through Frequency-based Quantum deep learning methods [0.0]
  Deliberation plays a crucial role in shaping outcomes by weighing diverse perspectives before reaching decisions.<n>With recent advancements in Natural Language Processing, it has become possible to computationally model deliberation.<n>We present a comparative analysis of multiple NLP techniques to evaluate how effectively models interpret deliberative discourse.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-26T17:23:55Z)
• Interpreting Fedspeak with Confidence: A LLM-Based Uncertainty-Aware Framework Guided by Monetary Policy Transmission Paths [30.982590730616746]
  "Fedspeak", the stylized and often nuanced language used by the U.S. Federal Reserve, encodes implicit policy signals and strategic stances.<n>We propose an uncertainty-aware framework for parsing and interpreting Fedspeak.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-11T14:04:59Z)
• Your AI, Not Your View: The Bias of LLMs in Investment Analysis [62.388554963415906]
  In finance, Large Language Models (LLMs) face frequent knowledge conflicts arising from discrepancies between their pre-trained parametric knowledge and real-time market data.<n>These conflicts are especially problematic in real-world investment services, where a model's inherent biases can misalign with institutional objectives.<n>We propose an experimental framework to investigate emergent behaviors in such conflict scenarios, offering a quantitative analysis of bias in investment analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-28T16:09:38Z)
• Can We Reliably Predict the Fed's Next Move? A Multi-Modal Approach to U.S. Monetary Policy Forecasting [2.6396287656676733]
  This study examines whether predictive accuracy can be enhanced by integrating structured data with unstructured textual signals from Federal Reserve communications.<n>Our results show that hybrid models consistently outperform unimodal baselines.<n>For monetary policy forecasting, simpler hybrid models can offer both accuracy and interpretability, delivering actionable insights for researchers and decision-makers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-28T05:54:58Z)
• A Multi-LLM-Agent-Based Framework for Economic and Public Policy Analysis [0.0]
  This paper pioneers a novel approach to economic and public policy analysis by leveraging multiple Large Language Models (LLMs) as heterogeneous artificial economic agents.<n>We first evaluate five LLMs' economic decision-making capabilities in solving two-period consumption allocation problems.<n>We construct a Multi-LLM-Agent-Based (MLAB) framework by mapping these LLMs to specific educational groups and corresponding income brackets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-24T06:27:07Z)
• Evaluating Interventional Reasoning Capabilities of Large Language Models [58.52919374786108]
  Large language models (LLMs) are used to automate decision-making tasks.<n>In this paper, we evaluate whether LLMs can accurately update their knowledge of a data-generating process in response to an intervention.<n>We create benchmarks that span diverse causal graphs (e.g., confounding, mediation) and variable types.<n>These benchmarks allow us to isolate the ability of LLMs to accurately predict changes resulting from their ability to memorize facts or find other shortcuts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-08T14:15:56Z)
• Predictive Churn with the Set of Good Models [61.00058053669447]
  This paper explores connections between two seemingly unrelated concepts of predictive inconsistency.<n>The first, known as predictive multiplicity, occurs when models that perform similarly produce conflicting predictions for individual samples.<n>The second concept, predictive churn, examines the differences in individual predictions before and after model updates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-12T16:15:25Z)
• Can ChatGPT Forecast Stock Price Movements? Return Predictability and Large Language Models [48.87381259980254]
  We document the capability of large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT to predict stock market reactions from news headlines without direct financial training.<n>Using post-knowledge-cutoff headlines, GPT-4 captures initial market responses, achieving approximately 90% portfolio-day hit rates for the non-tradable initial reaction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-15T19:22:37Z)
• Test-time Collective Prediction [73.74982509510961]
  Multiple parties in machine learning want to jointly make predictions on future test points. Agents wish to benefit from the collective expertise of the full set of agents, but may not be willing to release their data or model parameters. We explore a decentralized mechanism to make collective predictions at test time, leveraging each agent's pre-trained model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-22T18:29:58Z)
• On the model-based stochastic value gradient for continuous reinforcement learning [50.085645237597056]
  We show that simple model-based agents can outperform state-of-the-art model-free agents in terms of both sample-efficiency and final reward. Our findings suggest that model-based policy evaluation deserves closer attention.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-08-28T17:58:29Z)

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.