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.
By Xiang Yin, Adam Dejl, Antonio Rago, Lihu Chen, Francesca Toni
arXiv:2607. 03561v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As AI models continue to develop powerful capabilities, it becomes critical that we are able to verify that their output is aligned with our intentions.
By Liyan Chen, Yael Tauman Kalai, Zoe Xi
arXiv:2607. 01251v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Debate, where AI agents argue opposing positions, has emerged as a key approach to scalable oversight.
By Yuyang Jiang, Chacha Chen, Teng Wu, Liwen Sun, Han Liu, Shi Feng, Chenhao Tan
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.
By Stylianos Loukas Vasileiou, Antonio Rago, William Yeoh, Georgina Curto
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.
By Zhenghao Li, Zhi Zheng, Wei Chen, Jielun Zhao, Yong Chen, Tong Xu, Enhong Chen
The paper shows that fine‑tuning a large language model (LLM) with a debate framework—where a generator and a critic compete and a weaker LLM judge adjudicates—reduces reward hacking compared to standard reinforcement learning from AI feedback (RLAIF). In experiments on mathematics tasks, the debate approach keeps the judge’s performance stable, achieving a 45% higher peak validation accuracy than the RLAIF baseline and mitigating the rapid exploitation of judge errors. Additional findings indicate that weakening the judge speeds hacking unless countered by extra debate rounds, that debate can override misalignment prompts, and that word‑limit constraints on critiques help balance the game and prevent judge hacking.
whyItMatters":"The study demonstrates a practical method to curb reward hacking in RL‑based AI systems, addressing a key obstacle for safely scaling AI oversight."
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:2608. 01463v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Multi-agent debate commonly exchanges complete rationales even when disagreements concern only a few intermediate claims.
By Weijun Gao, Xiang Ding, Haoyang Liu, Tiancheng Xing
arXiv:2510. 20963v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Multi-agent debate (MAD) was proposed as a promising approach for ensembling the wisdom of multiple large language models (LLMs) to improve reasoning and provide effective supervision to superhuman LLMs.
By Yongqiang Chen, Gang Niu, James Cheng, Bo Han, Masashi Sugiyama
As autonomous AI agents take on every stage of scientific inquiry, research output is expanding far beyond human review capacity. Yet scientific communication still relies on natural-language prose: a...
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:2609.24895v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: When an LLM supplies an argument that a user could not readily construct, how can the user decide whether to accept its claim? Inspired by interactive...
By Baotong Zhang, Dean Foster, Jo\~ao Sedoc
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.
By Daan R. Henselmans, Derck W. E. Prinzhorn, Arno Libert