arXiv:2606. 07532v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: RLHF-trained models are systematically biased toward agreement over accuracy, a structural property of the training process.
By Sam Ryan
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.
By Fuqiang Niu, Bowen Zhang
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.
By Jakub Mas{\l}owski, Jaros{\l}aw A. Chudziak
arXiv:2606. 24976v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Foundation-model agents in multi-step, open-ended environments frequently suffer from compounding errors, where early mistakes contaminate long-horizon trajectories.
By Pradyumna Narayana, Sana Ayromlou, Purvi Sehgal
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:2605. 12991v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: LLM-based multi-agent pipelines flip from correct to incorrect answers under simulated peer disagreement at rates we term yield, a vulnerability widely attributed to RLHF-induced sycophancy.
By Adarsh Kumarappan, Ananya Mujoo
arXiv:2608. 13069v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are predominantly aligned to function as passive, sycophantic assistants.
By Lucia Mal\'i\v{c}kov\'a
arXiv:2608. 17776v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We demonstrate that RL finetuning an LLM using debate, a two-player adversarial game between a generator and a critic adjudicated by a weaker LLM judge, reduces reward hacking compared to a reinforcement learning from AI feedback (RLAIF) baseline.
By Zachary Kenton, Lili Janzer, Rory Greig, Tian Huey Teh, Kirill Tyshchuk, Jonah Brown-Cohen, Harri Edwards, Senthooran Rajamanoharan, Noah Y. Siegel, Natasha Jaques, Rohin Shah
arXiv:2606. 07897v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Current AI models frequently exhibit epistemic sycophancy, endorsing claims to agree with a user.
By Alejandro Botas, Paul de Font-Reaulx, Luke Hewitt
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)}.
By Kaiming Liu, Fuwen Luo, Ziyue Wang, Jinrui Ju, Yuxuan Liu, Xuanyu Lei, Yunghwei Lai, Peng Li, Yang Liu
Large language models (LLMs) are predominantly aligned to function as passive, sycophantic assistants. We challenge this default paradigm by empirically evaluating the cognitive plasticity of open-weight architectures when subjected to rigorous behavioral reprogramming.
Large language models achieve strong reasoning performance, but often at prohibitive training cost - a challenge that is especially acute for compact models ($\leq 4 \, \mathrm{B}$ parameters) trained under limited budgets. We introduce MADA-RL, a post-training framework that specializes compact models into generator and critic roles and trains them with a debate-aware learning signal, fine-tuning only a small subset of parameters via LoRA adapters.