GroupDebate: Enhancing the Efficiency of Multi-Agent Debate Using Group Discussion
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- The paper proposes a novel approach called "GroupDebate" to enhance the efficiency of multi-agent debate using group discussion.
- GroupDebate aims to improve the decision-making process by leveraging the collective intelligence of a group of agents.
- The key idea is to allow agents to collaborate and share information during the debate, rather than operating in isolation.
Plain English Explanation
The paper introduces a new technique called GroupDebate that aims to make multi-agent debate systems more efficient. In a typical multi-agent debate, each agent argues for a particular side of an issue independently. The GroupDebate approach allows the agents to collaborate and share information during the debate, rather than working in isolation. This enables the agents to leverage the collective intelligence of the group to make better decisions. The researchers believe this collaborative approach can lead to more effective decision-making compared to traditional multi-agent debate systems.
Technical Explanation
The paper describes the GroupDebate system, which consists of multiple agents that are assigned to argue for or against a given proposition. Unlike traditional multi-agent debate, the GroupDebate approach allows the agents to engage in group discussions during the debate process. This enables the agents to share information, refine their arguments, and potentially change their positions based on the input from the group. The authors propose a novel protocol for facilitating these group discussions and coordinating the debate process.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a compelling case for the GroupDebate approach, suggesting that it can lead to more efficient and effective decision-making compared to traditional multi-agent debate systems. However, the authors acknowledge that the GroupDebate system introduces additional complexity and potential challenges, such as the need to manage group dynamics and ensure fairness in the decision-making process. Further research may be needed to address these concerns and explore the practical implementation of the GroupDebate approach in real-world scenarios.
Conclusion
The GroupDebate paper presents a novel approach to enhancing the efficiency of multi-agent debate systems by enabling agents to collaborate and share information during the debate process. This collaborative approach has the potential to lead to more effective decision-making by leveraging the collective intelligence of the group. The authors provide a detailed technical explanation of the GroupDebate system and discuss potential challenges and areas for future research. Overall, the paper offers a promising avenue for improving the decision-making capabilities of multi-agent systems.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
0
GroupDebate: Enhancing the Efficiency of Multi-Agent Debate Using Group Discussion
Tongxuan Liu, Xingyu Wang, Weizhe Huang, Wenjiang Xu, Yuting Zeng, Lei Jiang, Hailong Yang, Jing Li
In recent years, Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities across diverse NLP tasks. Extensive research has explored how to enhance the logical reasoning abilities such as Chain-of-Thought, Chain-of-Thought with Self-Consistency, Tree-Of-Thoughts, and multi-agent debates. In the context of multi-agent debates, significant performance improvements can be achieved with an increasing number of agents and debate rounds. However, the escalation in the number of agents and debate rounds can drastically raise the tokens cost of debates, thereby limiting the scalability of the multi-agent debate technique. To better harness the advantages of multi-agent debates in logical reasoning tasks, this paper proposes a method to significantly reduce token cost in multi-agent debates. This approach involves dividing all agents into multiple debate groups, with agents engaging in debates within their respective groups and sharing interim debate results between groups. Comparative experiments across multiple datasets have demonstrated that this method can reduce the total tokens by up to 51.7% during debates and while potentially enhancing accuracy by as much as 25%. Our method significantly enhances the performance and efficiency of interactions in the multi-agent debate.
Read more9/24/2024
0
Can LLMs Beat Humans in Debating? A Dynamic Multi-agent Framework for Competitive Debate
Yiqun Zhang, Xiaocui Yang, Shi Feng, Daling Wang, Yifei Zhang, Kaisong Song
Competitive debate is a complex task of computational argumentation. Large Language Models (LLMs) suffer from hallucinations and lack competitiveness in this field. To address these challenges, we introduce Agent for Debate (Agent4Debate), a dynamic multi-agent framework based on LLMs designed to enhance their capabilities in competitive debate. Drawing inspiration from human behavior in debate preparation and execution, Agent4Debate employs a collaborative architecture where four specialized agents, involving Searcher, Analyzer, Writer, and Reviewer, dynamically interact and cooperate. These agents work throughout the debate process, covering multiple stages from initial research and argument formulation to rebuttal and summary. To comprehensively evaluate framework performance, we construct the Competitive Debate Arena, comprising 66 carefully selected Chinese debate motions. We recruit ten experienced human debaters and collect records of 200 debates involving Agent4Debate, baseline models, and humans. The evaluation employs the Debatrix automatic scoring system and professional human reviewers based on the established Debatrix-Elo and Human-Elo ranking. Experimental results indicate that the state-of-the-art Agent4Debate exhibits capabilities comparable to those of humans. Furthermore, ablation studies demonstrate the effectiveness of each component in the agent structure.
Read more8/21/2024
💬
0
Encouraging Divergent Thinking in Large Language Models through Multi-Agent Debate
Tian Liang, Zhiwei He, Wenxiang Jiao, Xing Wang, Rui Wang, Yujiu Yang, Zhaopeng Tu, Shuming Shi
Modern large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT have shown remarkable performance on general language tasks but still struggle on complex reasoning tasks, which drives the research on cognitive behaviors of LLMs to explore human-like problem-solving strategies. Along this direction, one representative strategy is self-reflection, which asks an LLM to refine the solution with the feedback generated by itself iteratively. However, our study shows that such reflection-style methods suffer from the Degeneration-of-Thought (DoT) problem: once the LLM has established confidence in its solutions, it is unable to generate novel thoughts later through reflection even if its initial stance is incorrect. To address the DoT problem, we propose a Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) framework, in which multiple agents express their arguments in the state of tit for tat and a judge manages the debate process to obtain a final solution. Clearly, our MAD framework encourages divergent thinking in LLMs which would be helpful for tasks that require deep levels of contemplation. Experiment results on two challenging datasets, commonsense machine translation and counter-intuitive arithmetic reasoning, demonstrate the effectiveness of our MAD framework. Extensive analyses suggest that the adaptive break of debate and the modest level of tit for tat state are required for MAD to obtain good performance. Moreover, we find that LLMs might not be a fair judge if different LLMs are used for agents. Code is available at https://github.com/Skytliang/Multi-Agents-Debate.
Read more7/18/2024
0
Should we be going MAD? A Look at Multi-Agent Debate Strategies for LLMs
Andries Smit, Paul Duckworth, Nathan Grinsztajn, Thomas D. Barrett, Arnu Pretorius
Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) underscore their potential for responding to inquiries in various domains. However, ensuring that generative agents provide accurate and reliable answers remains an ongoing challenge. In this context, multi-agent debate (MAD) has emerged as a promising strategy for enhancing the truthfulness of LLMs. We benchmark a range of debating and prompting strategies to explore the trade-offs between cost, time, and accuracy. Importantly, we find that multi-agent debating systems, in their current form, do not reliably outperform other proposed prompting strategies, such as self-consistency and ensembling using multiple reasoning paths. However, when performing hyperparameter tuning, several MAD systems, such as Multi-Persona, perform better. This suggests that MAD protocols might not be inherently worse than other approaches, but that they are more sensitive to different hyperparameter settings and difficult to optimize. We build on these results to offer insights into improving debating strategies, such as adjusting agent agreement levels, which can significantly enhance performance and even surpass all other non-debate protocols we evaluated. We provide an open-source repository to the community with several state-of-the-art protocols together with evaluation scripts to benchmark across popular research datasets.
Read more7/19/2024