arXiv:2601. 05746v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Recent years have witnessed the rapid development of Large Language Model-based Multi-Agent Systems (MAS), which excel at collaborative decision-making and complex problem-solving.
The paper proposes a theory for judging post-hoc debates in AI, focusing on properties like reproducibility, robustness, groundedness, and explainability. It evaluates two debate‑judgement methods—LLM judges and formal computational argumentation semantics—finding similar accuracy but noting that argumentation semantics offers stronger formal guarantees. The study suggests that argumentation semantics is a preferable framework for principled debate judges in AI systems.
The paper introduces a text-based, multi-agent version of the board game Clue to test multi-step deductive reasoning in large language models (LLMs). Six LLM-based agents (GPT‑4o‑mini and Gemini‑2.5‑Flash) play turn‑based games, and a tool‑augmented approach uses a structured possibility matrix to convert implicit game state into explicit remaining possibilities, thereby offloading memory and deductive constraints from the agents. The study compares this tool‑augmented method against a baseline to assess its impact on reasoning quality and task success in a strategic reasoning environment.
arXiv:2606. 10296v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Multi-agent debate systems are typically evaluated only on whether the final answer is correct, overlooking the quality of the intermediate reasoning that debate is designed to produce.
Evaluating reasoning quality in multi-agent LLM systems is challenging, especially for open-ended tasks without reference answers. We investigate whether intrinsic confidence signals, token-level log-probabilities from decoding, can predict reasoning quality as assessed by LLM-as-judge evaluation.
arXiv:2505. 23399v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: We propose GAM-Agent, a game-theoretic multi-agent framework for enhancing vision-language reasoning.
The paper proposes a new method for evaluating AI accountability by analyzing the structural quality of a model’s defense for its decisions, using a four‑phase dialectical protocol based on Walton’s argumentation schemes and Govier’s criteria. Applied to nine large language models and 200 ambiguous moral-choice items, the study finds that models generally defend their reasoning well above the rubric minimum, though failures cluster on grounds and sufficiency and correlate with epistemic hedging. The protocol also reveals that models often present different argument schemes in justification than in reasoning, detects indefensible defenses, and highlights challenges in assessing retraction in AI alignment.
arXiv:2608.22566v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multi-agent large language model (LLM) systems are designed to improve reasoning by decomposing tasks across multiple agents with specialized functions...
arXiv:2610.16343v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multi-agent debate has shown promise for improving the reasoning of large language models, yet recent theory suggests its benefits are highly regime-de...
arXiv:2606. 10475v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Multi-agent debate frameworks have been shown to improve large language model performance in convergent tasks, but they are currently optimized in a way that heavily favors final output accuracy rather than stability of the process.
arXiv:2510.15144v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Simulating human reasoning in open-ended tasks has long been a central aspiration in AI and cognitive science. While large language models now appr...
OmouAI is an interactive deliberation system that combines large language models with computational argumentation to facilitate policy debates involving humans and simulated personas such as stakeholders, experts, or devil’s advocates. Each persona generates its own arguments, which are assembled into a shared argumentation framework that users can contest, add to, or revise, ensuring human oversight. The system evaluates arguments using deterministic argumentative semantics against external goals like the UN Sustainable Development Goals, providing faithful explanations and indicating how policy recommendations affect those goals.