Learning to Break: Knowledge-Enhanced Reasoning in Multi-Agent Debate System
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- This paper introduces "Apollo's Oracle", a system for enabling retrieval-augmented reasoning in multi-agent debates.
- The system allows agents to collaboratively query external knowledge sources to support their arguments, fostering more informed and substantive discussions.
- Key innovations include a retrieval module that selects relevant information, and a reasoning module that integrates retrieved knowledge into the agents' ongoing debate.
Plain English Explanation
The paper presents a system called "Apollo's Oracle" that helps AI agents have more effective and informed debates. In a typical debate, agents might just argue based on their own limited knowledge. But with Apollo's Oracle, the agents can dynamically search for and incorporate relevant information from external sources to strengthen their arguments.
The system has two main components: a retrieval module that finds useful information to support the agents' points, and a reasoning module that intelligently integrates that information into the ongoing debate. This allows the agents to have more substantive, data-driven discussions, rather than just relying on their own potentially biased or incomplete knowledge.
Overall, Apollo's Oracle aims to make AI-powered debates more informative and productive by giving the agents access to a broader knowledge base. This could have applications in areas like policy discussions, academic discourse, or creative ideation.
Technical Explanation
The core innovation of Apollo's Oracle is its two-part architecture for enabling retrieval-augmented reasoning in multi-agent debates.
The retrieval module uses a transformer-based model to dynamically query external knowledge sources (like Wikipedia) and retrieve passages that are relevant to the current state of the debate. This allows the agents to bring in authoritative information to support their arguments, rather than relying solely on their own potentially limited knowledge.
The reasoning module then takes these retrieved passages and integrates them into the agents' ongoing debate. It does this by encoding the debate context, the agent's current position, and the retrieved knowledge, and then using a transformer-based model to generate new utterances that seamlessly incorporate the external information.
Through extensive experiments, the authors demonstrate that this retrieval-augmented reasoning approach leads to more substantive, well-informed debates compared to baselines that lack the ability to dynamically query external sources. They also show that the system is able to handle multi-turn debates and adjust its reasoning as the discussion evolves.
Critical Analysis
One potential limitation of the Apollo's Oracle system is that it relies on the quality and coverage of the external knowledge sources it can query. If the underlying information is biased, incomplete, or unreliable, that could undermine the system's ability to facilitate truly informed debates.
Additionally, the paper does not address potential issues around the agents' incentives or strategic behavior. In a real-world debate setting, the agents might try to game the system by selectively retrieving information that supports their predetermined positions, rather than genuinely engaging with counterarguments.
Further research could explore ways to mitigate these challenges, such as by incorporating methods for assessing the trustworthiness of retrieved information or encouraging agents to consider diverse perspectives.
Conclusion
Overall, the Apollo's Oracle system represents an important step forward in enabling more substantive, data-driven debates between artificial agents. By allowing the agents to dynamically retrieve and integrate relevant external knowledge, the system has the potential to foster more informed, nuanced, and productive discussions on complex topics.
While the current implementation has some limitations, the core idea of retrieval-augmented reasoning could have far-reaching applications in fields like policy deliberation, academic discourse, and creative ideation. Further research in this direction could lead to significant advancements in the way artificial agents engage with and reason about the world.
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
Learning to Break: Knowledge-Enhanced Reasoning in Multi-Agent Debate System
Haotian Wang, Xiyuan Du, Weijiang Yu, Qianglong Chen, Kun Zhu, Zheng Chu, Lian Yan, Yi Guan
Multi-agent debate system (MAD) imitating the process of human discussion in pursuit of truth, aims to align the correct cognition of different agents for the optimal solution. It is challenging to make various agents perform right and highly consistent cognition due to their limited and different knowledge backgrounds (i.e., cognitive islands), which hinders the search for the optimal solution. To address the challenge, we propose a novel underline{M}ulti-underline{A}gent underline{D}ebate with underline{K}nowledge-underline{E}nhanced framework (textbf{MADKE}) to promote the system to find the solution. First, we involve a shared retrieval knowledge pool in the debate process to solve the problem of limited and different knowledge backgrounds. Then, we propose an adaptive knowledge selection method to guarantee the accuracy and personalization of knowledge. This method allows agents to choose whether to use external knowledge in each conversation round according to their own needs. Our experimental results on six datasets show that our method achieves state-of-the-art results compared to existing single-agent and multi-agent methods. Further analysis reveals that the introduction of retrieval knowledge can help the agent to break cognitive islands in the debate process and effectively improve the consistency and correctness of the model. Moreover, MADKE using Qwen1.5-72B-Chat surpasses GPT-4 by +1.26% on average in six datasets, which validates that our method can help open-source LLMs achieve or even surpass the performance of GPT-4. Our code is available at url{https://github.com/FutureForMe/MADKE}.
Read more7/12/2024
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
💬
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
DeepEdit: Knowledge Editing as Decoding with Constraints
Yiwei Wang, Muhao Chen, Nanyun Peng, Kai-Wei Chang
How to edit the knowledge in multi-step reasoning has become the major challenge in the knowledge editing (KE) of large language models (LLMs). The difficulty arises because the hallucinations of LLMs during multi-step reasoning often lead to incorrect use of new knowledge and incorrect answers. To address this issue, we design decoding constraints to regulate LLMs' reasoning, enhancing logical coherence when incorporating new knowledge. We propose a new KE framework: DEEPEDIT (Depth-first Search-based Constrained Decoding for Knowledge Editing), which enhances LLMs's ability to generate coherent reasoning chains with new knowledge through depth-first search. Our search selects the most important knowledge that satisfies our constraints as the reasoning step to efficiently increase the reasoning depth. In addition to DEEPEDIT, we propose two new KE benchmarks: MQUAKE-2002 and MQUAKE-HARD, which provide more precise and challenging assessments of KE approaches. Qualitatively, DEEPEDIT enables LLMs to produce succinct and coherent reasoning chains involving new knowledge. Quantitatively, it yields significant improvements on multiple KE benchmarks.
Read more6/21/2024