arXiv AI By Maria Victoria Carro, Denise Alejandra Mester, Facundo Nieto, Oscar Agustin Stanchi, Guido Ernesto Bergman, Giovanni Franco Gabriel Marrafini, Trinidad Borrell, Guido Freire, Joaquin Salvador Machulsky, Mario Alejandro Leiva, Ana Lopez, Nicolas Spinelli, Luca Nicolas Forziati Gangi, Eitan Sprejer, Federico Barrera Lemarchand, Gerardo Simari, Maria Vanina Martinez

Humans Correct Their Judgments Through Debate, but Weaker AI Models Do Not

Read the original on arXiv AI →

The paper examines whether AI‑driven debate can help humans and weaker language models (LLMs) correct their judgments. Experiments show that debate improves human accuracy over prior beliefs, especially with weighted voting, but offers little benefit—and sometimes harms—accuracy for weaker LLM supervisors. The study highlights debate as a promising tool for scalable human oversight while questioning its effectiveness for fully automated AI control.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

arXiv AI
Sep 10

Ordinary, Reasonable Chatbots: Do AI Models Track Human Legal Judgments?

The paper investigates whether large language model (LLM) chatbots can emulate human legal judgments of reasonableness. By comparing responses from 26 LLMs to those of human participants across 25 legal scenarios, the study finds that chatbots generally track human answers but tend to produce more homogeneous, government‑ and corporation‑friendly responses and align more closely with white, male, older, and more educated respondents. The authors note that these patterns warrant further systematic research.

By Nirav Patel, Emily Wenger, Christopher Buccafusco
arXiv AI
Jul 23

Avoiding Obfuscation with Prover-Estimator Debate

arXiv:2506. 13609v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Training powerful AI systems to exhibit desired behaviors hinges on the ability to provide accurate human supervision on increasingly complex tasks.

By Jonah Brown-Cohen, Geoffrey Irving, Georgios Piliouras, Lijie Chen, Jiawei Li, Zhiyang Xun
arXiv AI
Aug 20

A Theory of Post-hoc Debate Judgement

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 AI
Sep 4

Toward Collective-Centric Evaluation of Preference Inference for Participatory Democracy

The paper examines how Preference Inference (PI) models used in large-scale participatory democracy platforms can alter the perceived consensus and minority support by predicting missing votes. It introduces a collective‑centric evaluation framework that assesses whether inferred votes maintain key properties of the overall preference landscape, rather than focusing solely on individual prediction accuracy. Using the largest multilingual dataset to date—four consultations with over 90,000 participants, 1 million votes, and 22 languages—the study finds that models with similar predictive accuracy can differ markedly in how well they preserve the collective structure, underscoring that accuracy alone is insufficient for evaluating PI in democratic contexts.

By Pierre-Antoine Lequeu, Salim Hafid, Paul Lerner, Nazanin Shafiabadi, Laur\`ene Cave, David Mas, Jean-Philippe Cointet, Benjamin Piwowarski, Fran\c{c}ois Yvon