The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at Hugging Face Trending Papers.
arXiv:2610.28604v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Current evaluation of LLM-generated debate largely focuses on argumentative quality, leaving the value structure of generated arguments underexamined....
arXiv:2608. 10327v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Can AI systems be aligned to human values?
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.
The paper introduces “Persuasio”, a multi‑agent dialogue platform that uses a formal argumentation theory to adjudicate winners in free‑text debates. Using this system, the authors generated 192 debates on a UK political topic involving humans and large language models (LLMs), and evaluated 22 interlocutors through automated adjudication and 9,702 crowdsourced pairwise judgments across 1,386 annotation instances. The results show a consistent decoupling between subjective persuasiveness—where LLMs dominate—and formal argumentative strength—where humans remain competitive, with multi‑agent and retrieval‑augmented variants widening this gap.
arXiv:2603. 23841v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: While Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used as primary sources of information, their potential for political bias may impact their objectivity.
ExpertIVS is a framework that uses 14 sociological expert agents to interpret World Values Survey responses, reconstructing individual value systems in a coherent, internally consistent manner rather than simply concatenating survey answers. It introduces a multi‑agent debate mechanism to assess LLM alignment with these value profiles during dynamic interactions. Experiments on 480 individuals from 12 countries show a 90.78% value restoration fidelity and a 5.3% improvement in value generalization over baseline methods, while also demonstrating strong personality discriminability and behavioral consistency.