arXiv:2608.30373v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) has been widely adopted to improve LLM-based evaluation by prompting multiple agents to negotiate and reach a consensus. Howev...
arXiv:2604. 02668v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) often exhibit sycophancy: agreement with user stance even when it conflicts with the model's opinion.
arXiv:2510. 10002v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in sensitive everyday contexts -- offering personal advice, mental health support, and moral guidance -- understanding their behavior in navigating complex moral reasoning is essential.
arXiv:2606. 05384v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM-as-judge evaluation is widely used in benchmarking pipelines, where model outputs are compared and ranked using automated evaluators.
arXiv:2606. 30887v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models show promise for mental health support, yet therapeutic quality improves only when evaluation functions as an actionable control signal rather than a passive metric.
The paper evaluates the use of large language models (LLMs) as judges for assessing conversational voice agents, comparing human judgments with GPT‑4.1 and GPT‑5 across telecom and retail interactions. It examines agreement, metric‑level correlations, and consistency across three evaluation configurations (p0, p1, p2) to determine how reliably LLMs can judge conversational quality and safety. The study finds that LLM‑based evaluation can be effective but its reliability varies by metric and configuration, suggesting a hybrid approach where LLMs handle scalable assessment while humans focus on metrics requiring contextual interpretation.
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.
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: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.
The paper introduces multi-expert Conformal Risk Control (CRC) algorithms for pairwise LLM-as-a-Judge evaluation in open-ended dialogue. Two initial methods—Score Averaging and Decision Voting—aggregate at the score and decision levels, respectively, and outperform single-expert approaches on homogeneous expert panels. To address limited coverage on heterogeneous panels, the authors propose Marginal‑Calibrated Conformal Consensus (MC3), which captures distinct per‑expert scoring scales through threshold ratios while maintaining a unified decision function, and demonstrate its effectiveness on a new 1,800‑pair human pairwise‑preference benchmark called Panel.
Large language model-based multi-agent systems (LLM-MAS) are designed through roles, debate protocols, and aggregation rules. These choices create implicit social expectations: agents may be expected to trust, challenge, defer to, or collaborate with peers.
arXiv:2605. 12530v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: LLM fairness should be evaluated through in-situ behavioral pattern rather than standardized-test Q&A benchmarks.