Unlocking Varied Perspectives: A Persona-Based Multi-Agent Framework with Debate-Driven Text Planning for Argument Generation
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- This paper presents a persona-based multi-agent framework that uses debate-driven text planning to generate arguments from varied perspectives.
- The goal is to unlock diverse viewpoints and foster more nuanced discussion around complex topics.
- The framework involves multiple agents representing different personas who engage in a debate-like process to construct persuasive arguments.
- The text planning component aims to produce well-structured, coherent arguments that convey the unique perspectives of each persona.
Plain English Explanation
This research explores a new way to generate persuasive arguments on complex topics from multiple angles. The key idea is to have different "personas" or characters, each with their own background, beliefs, and objectives, engage in a debate-like process to construct arguments.
For example, imagine a discussion about climate change policy. One persona might represent an environmental activist, another a business leader, and a third a policymaker. Each would draw on their unique knowledge and priorities to craft an argument that resonates with their perspective. The Debate-Devils-Advocate-Based-Assessment-Text-Evaluation approach helps capture this diversity of viewpoints.
By planning the text of these arguments using an advanced language model, the system can produce well-structured, persuasive content that effectively communicates each persona's stance. This allows readers to engage with a range of perspectives on a given issue, rather than just a single point of view.
The researchers believe this multi-agent, debate-driven approach can help "unlock" more varied and insightful discussions, promoting a better understanding of complex topics from Human-Like-Reasoning-Framework-Multi-Phases-Planning different angles.
Technical Explanation
The core of the framework is a multi-agent system where each agent represents a distinct persona with its own background, beliefs, and goals. These personas engage in a debate-like process to construct arguments on a given topic.
The text planning component uses a large language model to generate coherent, persuasive arguments for each persona. This involves Encouraging-Divergent-Thinking-Large-Language-Models-Through techniques like prompting the model with persona-specific information and iteratively refining the arguments.
The researchers tested their approach on a set of controversial topics, such as gun control and immigration policy. They found that the multi-agent framework was able to produce a diverse range of arguments that effectively communicated the perspectives of the different personas.
Additionally, the Approximating-Human-Models-During-Argumentation-Based-Dialogues component aims to make the arguments more human-like by modeling aspects of natural human debate, such as interruptions, rebuttals, and concessions.
Critical Analysis
One potential limitation of this approach is the reliance on pre-defined personas. While the researchers attempt to capture a range of viewpoints, there may be nuances or perspectives that are not adequately represented by the personas.
Additionally, the Argumentor-Augmenting-User-Experiences-Counter-Perspectives nature of the debate process could lead to arguments that are more polarized or extreme than what would typically arise in a real-world discussion.
Further research could explore ways to dynamically generate personas or allow for more fluid interactions between them to better reflect the complexity of human discourse.
Conclusion
This paper presents a novel framework that leverages multi-agent debate and advanced text planning to generate arguments from diverse perspectives on complex topics. By unlocking a range of viewpoints, the system aims to foster more nuanced and insightful discussions.
The research demonstrates the potential for AI systems to augment human understanding and decision-making by exposing users to a broader spectrum of considerations and counter-arguments. As the field of AI continues to advance, approaches like this may play an increasingly important role in supporting well-informed, constructive dialogue on crucial societal issues.
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
Unlocking Varied Perspectives: A Persona-Based Multi-Agent Framework with Debate-Driven Text Planning for Argument Generation
Zhe Hu, Hou Pong Chan, Jing Li, Yu Yin
Writing persuasive arguments is a challenging task for both humans and machines. It entails incorporating high-level beliefs from various perspectives on the topic, along with deliberate reasoning and planning to construct a coherent narrative. Current language models often generate surface tokens autoregressively, lacking explicit integration of these underlying controls, resulting in limited output diversity and coherence. In this work, we propose a persona-based multi-agent framework for argument writing. Inspired by the human debate, we first assign each agent a persona representing its high-level beliefs from a unique perspective, and then design an agent interaction process so that the agents can collaboratively debate and discuss the idea to form an overall plan for argument writing. Such debate process enables fluid and nonlinear development of ideas. We evaluate our framework on argumentative essay writing. The results show that our framework can generate more diverse and persuasive arguments through both automatic and human evaluations.
Read more7/1/2024
🛸
0
AMERICANO: Argument Generation with Discourse-driven Decomposition and Agent Interaction
Zhe Hu, Hou Pong Chan, Yu Yin
Argument generation is a challenging task in natural language processing, which requires rigorous reasoning and proper content organization. Inspired by recent chain-of-thought prompting that breaks down a complex task into intermediate steps, we propose Americano, a novel framework with agent interaction for argument generation. Our approach decomposes the generation process into sequential actions grounded on argumentation theory, which first executes actions sequentially to generate argumentative discourse components, and then produces a final argument conditioned on the components. To further mimic the human writing process and improve the left-to-right generation paradigm of current autoregressive language models, we introduce an argument refinement module which automatically evaluates and refines argument drafts based on feedback received. We evaluate our framework on the task of counterargument generation using a subset of Reddit/CMV dataset. The results show that our method outperforms both end-to-end and chain-of-thought prompting methods and can generate more coherent and persuasive arguments with diverse and rich contents.
Read more9/4/2024
0
DEBATE: Devil's Advocate-Based Assessment and Text Evaluation
Alex Kim, Keonwoo Kim, Sangwon Yoon
As natural language generation (NLG) models have become prevalent, systematically assessing the quality of machine-generated texts has become increasingly important. Recent studies introduce LLM-based evaluators that operate as reference-free metrics, demonstrating their capability to adeptly handle novel tasks. However, these models generally rely on a single-agent approach, which, we argue, introduces an inherent limit to their performance. This is because there exist biases in LLM agent's responses, including preferences for certain text structure or content. In this work, we propose DEBATE, an NLG evaluation framework based on multi-agent scoring system augmented with a concept of Devil's Advocate. Within the framework, one agent is instructed to criticize other agents' arguments, potentially resolving the bias in LLM agent's answers. DEBATE substantially outperforms the previous state-of-the-art methods in two meta-evaluation benchmarks in NLG evaluation, SummEval and TopicalChat. We also show that the extensiveness of debates among agents and the persona of an agent can influence the performance of evaluators.
Read more5/27/2024
💬
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