CHAL: Council of Hierarchical Agentic Language

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.12718v1
• Date: Tue, 12 May 2026 20:26:41 GMT
• Title: CHAL: Council of Hierarchical Agentic Language
• Abstract summary: We argue that the genuine value of debate, and dialectic systems as a whole, lies in defeasible domains.<n>We present the Council ofHierarchical Agentic Language (CHAL), a multi-agent dialectic framework that treats defeasible argumentation as an engine for belief optimization.
• Score: 0.5156484100374058
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Multi-agent debate has emerged as a promising approach for improving LLM reasoning on ground-truth tasks, yet current methodologies face certain structural limitations: debate tends to induce a martingale over belief trajectories, majority voting accounts for most observed gains, and LLMs exhibit confidence escalation rather than calibration across rounds. We argue that the genuine value of debate, and dialectic systems as a whole, lies not in ground-truth tasks but in defeasible domains, where every position can in principle be defeated by better reasoning. We present the Council of Hierarchical Agentic Language (CHAL), a multi-agent dialectic framework that treats defeasible argumentation as an engine for belief optimization. Each agent maintains a CHAL Belief Schema (CBS), a graph-structured belief representation with a Bayesian-inspired architecture, that facilitates belief revision through a gradient-informed dynamic mechanism by leveraging the strength of the belief's thesis as a differentiable objective. Meta-cognitive value systems spanning epistemology, logic, and ethics are elevated to configurable hyperparameters governing agent reasoning and adjudication outcomes. We provide a series of ablation experiments that demonstrate systematic and interpretable effects: the adjudicator's value system determines the debate's overall trajectories in latent belief space, council diversity refines beliefs for all participants, and the framework generalizes across broad fields. CHAL is, to our knowledge, the first framework to treat multi-agent debate as structured belief optimization over defeasible domains. Further, the auditable belief artifacts it produces establish the foundation for dedicated evaluation suites for defeasible argumentation, with broader implications for building AI systems whose reasoning and value commitments are transparent, aligned, and subject to human oversight.

Related papers

• Provably Secure Agent Guardrail [89.79561918065122]
  Existing defense architectures rely on empirical semantic guardrails and probabilistic large model adjudicators.<n>This paper proposes a new security paradigm for agents based on the fundamental limitations of logical reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-28T02:12:41Z)
• Position: agentic AI orchestration should be Bayes-consistent [92.04373485710285]
  This paper argues that coherent decision-making requires Bayesian principles at the orchestration level of the agentic system.<n>It provides examples and design patterns to illustrate how beliefs and utility-aware policies can improve agentic AI orchestration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-01T15:43:43Z)
• Debate to Align: Reliable Entity Alignment through Two-Stage Multi-Agent Debate [13.025981335381637]
  We propose AgentEA, a reliable EA framework based on multi-agent debate.<n>AgentEA improves embedding quality through entity representation preference optimization.<n>It then introduces a two-stage multi-role debate mechanism consisting of lightweight debate verification and deep debate alignment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-15T06:54:27Z)
• Verify Before You Commit: Towards Faithful Reasoning in LLM Agents via Self-Auditing [5.497064111008921]
  We propose textbfSelf-textbfAudited textbfVerified textbfReasoning (textscSAVeR), a novel framework that enforces verification over internal belief states within the agent before action commitment.<n>Our approach consistently improves reasoning faithfulness while preserving competitive end-task performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-09T16:01:03Z)
• A Survey of Reasoning in Autonomous Driving Systems: Open Challenges and Emerging Paradigms [49.66022971508878]
  We argue that reasoning should be elevated from a modular component to the system's cognitive core.<n>We derive and systematize seven core reasoning challenges, such as the responsiveness-reasoning trade-off and social-game reasoning.<n>We identify a fundamental and unresolved tension between the high-latency, deliberative nature of LLM-based reasoning and the millisecond-scale, safety-critical demands of vehicle control.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-11T07:40:53Z)
• LaSER: Internalizing Explicit Reasoning into Latent Space for Dense Retrieval [74.72139580745511]
  LaSER is a novel self-distillation framework that internalizes explicit reasoning into the latent space of retrievers.<n>Our method successfully combines the reasoning depth of explicit CoT pipelines with the inference efficiency of standard dense retrievers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-02T04:11:18Z)
• On Theoretically-Driven LLM Agents for Multi-Dimensional Discourse Analysis [0.0]
  This paper presents a comparative multi-agent framework designed to quantify the benefits of incorporating explicit theoretical knowledge for this task.<n>We utilise a dataset of annotated political debates to establish a new standard encompassing four distinct rephrase functions.<n>We evaluate two parallel LLM-based agent systems: one enhanced by argumentation theory via Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), and an identical zero-shot baseline.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-14T10:30:39Z)
• Towards a Science of Collective AI: LLM-based Multi-Agent Systems Need a Transition from Blind Trial-and-Error to Rigorous Science [70.3658845234978]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have greatly extended the capabilities of Multi-Agent Systems (MAS)<n>Despite this rapid progress, the field still relies heavily on empirical trial-and-error.<n>This bottleneck stems from the ambiguity of attribution.<n>We propose a factor attribution paradigm to systematically identify collaboration-driving factors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-05T04:19:52Z)
• Exploring Syntropic Frameworks in AI Alignment: A Philosophical Investigation [0.0]
  I argue that AI alignment should be reconceived as architecting syntropic, reasons-responsive agents through process-based, multi-agent, developmental mechanisms.<n>I articulate the specification trap'' argument demonstrating why content-based value specification appears structurally unstable.<n>I propose syntropy as an information-theoretic framework for understanding multi-agent alignment dynamics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-19T23:31:29Z)
• Hierarchical Invariance for Robust and Interpretable Vision Tasks at Larger Scales [54.78115855552886]
  We show how to construct over-complete invariants with a Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN)-like hierarchical architecture. With the over-completeness, discriminative features w.r.t. the task can be adaptively formed in a Neural Architecture Search (NAS)-like manner. For robust and interpretable vision tasks at larger scales, hierarchical invariant representation can be considered as an effective alternative to traditional CNN and invariants.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-23T16:50:07Z)
• Towards CausalGPT: A Multi-Agent Approach for Faithful Knowledge Reasoning via Promoting Causal Consistency in LLMs [55.66353783572259]
  Causal-Consistency Chain-of-Thought harnesses multi-agent collaboration to bolster the faithfulness and causality of foundation models.<n>Our framework demonstrates significant superiority over state-of-the-art methods through extensive and comprehensive evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-23T04:59:21Z)

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.