arXiv AI

MABPD: Multi-Agent Bias Probing & Detection via Structured Argument Debate

MABPD (Multi‑Agent Bias Probing & Detection) is a training‑free pipeline that uses three specialized large language model agents to analyze news articles from complementary perspectives and resolve disagreements via a Structured Argument Debate (SAD) protocol. SAD imposes an asymmetric burden of proof—biased claims lacking grounded textual evidence receive zero weight—along with role‑weighted voting and post‑consensus verification, replacing task‑specific supervised decision boundaries. Ablation studies show that the debate module alone accounts for up to a 10.6‑point F1 gain, and on the BABE benchmark MABPD attains 83.4% macro F1, within 0.7 percentage points of the supervised state‑of‑the‑art, while achieving 75.0% zero‑shot accuracy on the SemEval 2019 HyperPartisan corpus.

arXiv AI
Jun 17

RooseBERT: A New Deal For Political Language Modelling

arXiv:2508. 03250v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: The increasing amount of political debates and politics-related discussions calls for the definition of novel computational methods to automatically analyse such content with the final goal of lightening up political deliberation to citizens.

By Deborah Dore, Elena Cabrio, Serena Villata
arXiv AI
Jun 2

Demystifying Multi-Agent Debate: The Role of Confidence and Diversity

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.

By Xiaochen Zhu, Caiqi Zhang, Yizhou Chi, Tom Stafford, Nigel Collier, Andreas Vlachos
arXiv Computation and Language
Aug 25

Meta-Moderator: Empowering Multi-Agent Debate with Meta-Cognition

Meta-Moderator is a learnable framework that treats moderation as a meta‑cognitive process, monitoring debate utility, controlling deliberation, and adjudicating final answers. It is trained independently of the debaters through outcome‑driven policy optimization, allowing dynamic regulation of debate rather than relying on fixed budgets or untrained judges. Across five benchmarks, Meta‑Moderator outperforms common decision layers, transfers across tasks and system configurations, and selectively allocates debate to reduce mis‑aggregation after informative hypotheses appear.

By Wentao Hu, Zhuoyue Wan, Jinhao Shen, Chen Jason Zhang, Xiaoyong Wei, Qing Li
arXiv AI
Sep 3

Loom: Weaving Diagnostic Strands into Free-Text Consensus via Embedding-Space Reweighting

Loom is a generative consensus framework designed for real‑world root‑cause analysis (RCA) that combines open‑form hypotheses from modular heuristics with a lightweight large language model (LLM) synthesis step. It projects hypotheses into a continuous embedding space and uses an iterative centroid‑based reweighting algorithm to resolve conflicts, producing a single consensus that is then synthesized by one LLM call. On the OpenRCA benchmark Loom matches state‑of‑the‑art autonomous agents on some datasets while achieving significantly higher efficiency—about 26× faster and 33× faster with an 8B‑parameter synthesizer. whyItMatters":"Loom demonstrates how embedding‑space reweighting can bridge the gap between statistical rigor and expressive LLMs, enabling efficient, trustworthy RCA in industrial settings."

By Ron Begleiter, Katya Egert Berg, Gilad Saban, Gil Shabat