arXiv:2608. 08210v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Collaborative dialogue can end with apparent agreement while participants still differ on goals, assumptions, or execution plans, creating an \textbf{illusion of alignment (IoA)}.
arXiv:2605. 12920v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Effective collaboration between embodied agents requires more than acting in a shared environment; it demands communication grounded in each agent's evolving understanding of the world.
arXiv:2609.38324v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Multi-agent systems of LLMs add discussion to majority voting and are therefore expected to be more capable. However, empirical reports conflict on w...
arXiv:2601. 19921v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Multi-agent debate (MAD) is widely used to improve large language model (LLM) performance through test-time scaling, yet recent work shows that vanilla MAD often underperforms simple majority vote despite higher computational cost.
The paper introduces ContraTalk, a benchmark that tests whether dialogue models truly use acoustic cues or rely on transcript shortcuts. It formalizes cross‑modal disagreement, creates conflict and consistent QA examples, and proposes an Audio Twin representation to expose acoustic evidence to models. Experiments show that while text‑only LLMs perform well on consistent cases, they falter on conflict cases, and AudioLLMs only partially mitigate this issue.
arXiv:2609.08016v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multi-agent debate, in which several LLMs exchange arguments before answering, is widely assumed to improve answer quality by surfacing genuine disagre...
The paper introduces CAPA, a Collaborative Agent Predictive Architecture designed to give large language model (LLM) agents situational awareness in online meetings. CAPA uses a Perceiver to update meeting state, a Predictor to forecast conversation flow, a Controller to decide speaking actions, and a Generator to phrase contributions. Evaluated on 137 AMI meetings, CAPA reduces the silence rate from 51.4% to 2.5%, doubles credited recovery, and maintains low hallucination, demonstrating that structured state tracking is key to effective delegation.
arXiv:2606. 04987v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Multi-party dialogue is a critical setting for studying collaborative reasoning and decision-making, yet existing datasets rarely focus on structured, in-depth complex reasoning tasks.
The study evaluates multi‑agent debate (MAD) in small language models, testing whether cognitive diversity—via personas, sampling temperature, or model identity—drives performance gains. Across 23 models, five tasks, and over 5,500 runs, MAD consistently outperforms single‑model inference but, when matched for generation budget, it ties or falls behind self‑consistency sampling, with persona prompting actually reducing accuracy. The authors find that MAD’s benefits largely stem from the first answer exchange and that many reported gains are due to ensemble‑sampling effects rather than true diversity, highlighting the need for budget‑matched, contamination‑checked baselines. whyItMatters":"The findings clarify that MAD’s perceived advantages may be overestimated and that future debate mechanisms must be evaluated against rigorous, budget‑matched baselines to ensure genuine performance improvements."
The paper introduces CAPA, a Collaborative Agent Predictive Architecture designed to improve large language model (LLM) participation in online meetings. CAPA tracks meeting state with a Perceiver, predicts conversation flow, decides when and what to speak, and generates contributions in the participant’s style, all while being calibrated by judges. In experiments on 137 AMI meetings, CAPA cuts the LLM’s silence rate from 51.4% to 2.5%, doubles credited recovery, and maintains low hallucination.
arXiv:2606. 13197v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multi-agent debate (MAD) can improve large language model reasoning, but fixed debate pipelines often waste computation and can amplify correlated errors among similar agents.
arXiv:2607. 01251v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Debate, where AI agents argue opposing positions, has emerged as a key approach to scalable oversight.
The paper introduces UC-Bench, a human‑annotated benchmark for detecting user‑side implicit conflicts in Human‑LLM dialogue, a problem largely overlooked compared to LLM‑side conflicts. Experiments show current LLMs struggle with these conflicts, especially when they stem from implicit incompatibilities in dialogue history. To address this, the authors propose SynUC, a constraint‑guided data synthesis method that generates a new training set, UC‑Data, which improves performance of lightweight LLMs on UC‑Bench compared to larger general‑purpose models and existing synthesis approaches.