TriAdReview: Triangular Adversarial Review Architecture for Multi-Model Technical Document Generation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.15074v1
• Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2026 03:03:21 GMT
• Title: TriAdReview: Triangular Adversarial Review Architecture for Multi-Model Technical Document Generation
• Abstract summary: TriAdReview is a triangular adversarial review architecture that employs two independent reviewer models.<n>We evaluate TriAdReview across five benchmark tasks using three configurations.
• Score: 4.131782714245991
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for technical document generation, yet single-model outputs often suffer from over-engineering, security blind spots, and incomplete coverage. We propose TriAdReview, a triangular adversarial review architecture that employs two independent reviewer models (engineering and boundary perspectives) and a triangular judging mechanism to iteratively improve a generator model's output. We evaluate TriAdReview across five benchmark tasks - architecture design, code generation, proposal review, security audit, and requirements analysis - using three configurations: single model (baseline), dual model (single review), and triple model (full system). Results across 75 experiments (n=5 per cell) show that the triple model configuration achieves a 10.1% overall improvement over the single model baseline (26.2 vs. 23.8 out of 50; p<0.05, paired t-test), with particularly strong gains on security audit (+27.6%), code generation (+20.8%), and architecture design (+15.6%). A second scorer (mimo-v2.5-pro) confirms the direction with a smaller effect (+2.7%), suggesting moderate inter-rater agreement. However, the system shows a -7.5% degradation on requirements analysis, revealing that adversarial review architectures have a structural bias toward simplification that is counterproductive for completeness-oriented tasks. We analyze this boundary condition through a task-type framework and demonstrate that reviewer prompt adaptation partially mitigates the issue. Our findings provide the first empirical characterization of when multi-model adversarial review helps versus harms, with implications for the design of collaborative AI systems.

Related papers

• Apodex Discovery: Reality Benchmarks and Environments for Evaluating and Building Discoverative Artificial Intelligence [86.61561123749011]
  We introduce Apodex Discovery, a framework for building and evaluating discoverative AI through the heavy-duty solver.<n>First, a problem-scouting process surveyed 561 industries across 16 sectors, assembled 423 high-value real-world problems, and selected 20 for the initial release.<n>Second, a common environment-task-episode abstraction provides data, tools, constraints, feedback, trajectory recording, and verification of intermediate artifacts and final submissions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-11T18:48:40Z)
• Philosophical Dispositions as Behavioral Constraints for AI-Assisted Code Review: An Empirical Study [0.0]
  We present a system that constrains AI reviewer behavior through philosophical dispositions.<n>Each disposition is defined apophatically (by what it refuses to do)<n>We evaluate this system on 50 merged pull requests across 7 repositories spanning 5 programming languages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-21T23:57:25Z)
• Benchmarking and Evolving Reason-Reflect-Rectify for Reflective Visual Generation [65.7390808636333]
  We formalize the Reason-Reflect-Rectify (R3) loop as a core framework to enable multi-round Reflective Visual Generation (RVG)<n>We introduce R3-Bench, a benchmark of over 600 expert-annotated instances that quantifies iterative reasoning and rectification capabilities.<n>Experiments show that R3-Refiner achieves significant improvements on R3-Bench.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-19T10:24:31Z)
• RefEvo: Agentic Design with Co-Evolutionary Verification for Agile Reference Model Generation [17.822629270807283]
  RefEvo is a dynamic multi-agent framework designed for agile and reliable reference modeling.<n>We show how RefEvo achieves a 95% pass rate, outperforming static baselines by a large margin.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-27T09:22:02Z)
• Durable Evaluation Framework: Adversarial Arbitration for Sycophancy Reduction in Large Language Models [0.0]
  This paper evaluates a prompt-based instantiation of Durable Evaluation Framework Arbitration.<n>DEF Arbitration mitigates identity-framed sycophancy by arbitrating between two models tuned to opposing DEFs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-21T10:30:25Z)
• MinerU2.5-Pro: Pushing the Limits of Data-Centric Document Parsing at Scale [92.09717763663873]
  We present MinerU2.5-Pro, which advances the state of the art purely through data engineering and training strategy design.<n>At its core is a Data Engine co-designed around coverage, informativeness, and annotation accuracy.<n>We show that MinerU2.5-Pro achieves 95.69 on OmniDocBench v1.6, improving over the same-architecture baseline by 2.71 points and surpassing all existing methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-06T15:44:18Z)
• Structured Intent as a Protocol-Like Communication Layer: Cross-Model Robustness, Framework Comparison, and the Weak-Model Compensation Effect [0.0]
  This paper investigates how reliably structured intent representations preserve user goals across different AI models, languages, and prompting frameworks.<n>We find that structured prompting substantially reduces cross-language score variance relative to unstructured baselines.<n>In a user study, AI-expanded 5W3H prompts reduce interaction rounds by 60 percent and increase user satisfaction from 3.16 to 4.04.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-31T16:20:28Z)
• Brevity Constraints Reverse Performance Hierarchies in Language Models [0.0]
  On 7.7% of benchmark problems, larger language models underperform smaller ones by 28.4 percentage points despite 10-100x more parameters.<n>We identify the mechanism as spontaneous scale-dependent verbosity that introduces errors through overelaboration.<n>Our results establish that maximizing large model performance requires scale-aware prompt engineering.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-11T06:47:41Z)
• RealUnify: Do Unified Models Truly Benefit from Unification? A Comprehensive Benchmark [71.3555284685426]
  We introduce RealUnify, a benchmark designed to evaluate bidirectional capability synergy.<n>RealUnify comprises 1,000 meticulously human-annotated instances spanning 10 categories and 32 subtasks.<n>We find that current unified models still struggle to achieve effective synergy, indicating that architectural unification alone is insufficient.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-29T15:07:28Z)
• SpecEval: Evaluating Model Adherence to Behavior Specifications [63.13000010340958]
  We introduce an automated framework that audits models against their providers specifications.<n>Our central focus is on three way consistency between a provider specification, its model outputs, and its own models as judges.<n>We apply our framework to 16 models from six developers across more than 100 behavioral statements, finding systematic inconsistencies including compliance gaps of up to 20 percent across providers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-02T16:18:40Z)
• Hybrid-Segmentor: A Hybrid Approach to Automated Fine-Grained Crack Segmentation in Civil Infrastructure [52.2025114590481]
  We introduce Hybrid-Segmentor, an encoder-decoder based approach that is capable of extracting both fine-grained local and global crack features. This allows the model to improve its generalization capabilities in distinguish various type of shapes, surfaces and sizes of cracks. The proposed model outperforms existing benchmark models across 5 quantitative metrics (accuracy 0.971, precision 0.804, recall 0.744, F1-score 0.770, and IoU score 0.630), achieving state-of-the-art status.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-04T16:47:16Z)

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.