arXiv AI By Chirag Parmar, Akshat Mehta, Henglin Wu, Jagadish Ramamurthy, Shweta Medhekar

When Helping Hurts and How to Fix It: Multi-Agent Debate for Data Cleaning

Read the original on arXiv AI →

arXiv:2606. 02866v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: When does multi-agent debate help data cleaning, and when does it hurt?

Summary generated by The Flow from the publisher's feed. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

arXiv Machine Learning
22h ago

Debate Training Reduces Reward Hacking in RLAIF

arXiv:2608. 17776v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We demonstrate that RL finetuning an LLM using debate, a two-player adversarial game between a generator and a critic adjudicated by a weaker LLM judge, reduces reward hacking compared to a reinforcement learning from AI feedback (RLAIF) baseline.

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 AI
Jul 21

MADA-RL: Multi-Agent Debate-Aware Reinforcement Learning for Parameter-Efficient Reasoning in Compact Models

arXiv:2607. 18006v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models achieve strong reasoning performance, but often at prohibitive training cost - a challenge that is especially acute for compact models ($\leq 4 \, \mathrm{B}$ parameters) trained under limited budgets.

By Martino M. L. Pulici, Cuong Xuan Chu, Evgeny Kharlamov, Zifeng Ding, Volker Tresp, Yunpu Ma
arXiv AI
Jun 2

Demystifying Multi-Agent Debate: The Role of Confidence and Diversity

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