arXiv AI By Jakub Mas{\l}owski, Jaros{\l}aw A. Chudziak

Towards Mitigating Fabricated Consensus: The Active Provenance Gate for Multi-Agent Debate Synthesis

Read the original on arXiv AI →

The paper introduces the Active Provenance Gate (APG), a post‑debate verification layer for multi‑agent debate synthesis that audits debate logs, applies self‑correction, and blocks unsupported claims before publication. Empirical studies show that APG more than doubles provenance fidelity in crisis simulations and that users prefer explicit failure reports over fabricated consensus. The work shifts data origin tracing from passive logging to active conditional blocking, addressing safety gaps in large‑language‑model‑based debate systems.

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
Jun 10

Decoupling Thought from Speech: Knowledge-Grounded Counterfactual Reasoning for Resilient Multi-Agent Argumentation

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 AI
Jun 16

From Agent Traces to Trust: A Survey of Evidence Tracing and Execution Provenance in LLM Agents

arXiv:2606. 04990v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language model (LLM)-based agents are evolving from passive text generators into autonomous systems capable of planning, tool use, retrieval, memory access, environmental interaction, and multi-agent collaboration.

By Yiqi Wang, Jiaqi Zhang, Taotao Cai, Zirui Liu, Qingqiang Sun, Zequn Sun, Zhangkai Wu, Manqing Dong, Mingkai Zhang, Xuefei Yin, Yanming Zhu
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