SYNTOLOGY HomeExplorerAtlasCodeMethodologyAboutDevelopersFeedPricing
Paper · 2311.17371 · 2023

Should we be going MAD? A Look at Multi-Agent Debate Strategies for LLMs

arXiv · PDF · Open in the Atlas

Code that ran

We lifted 8 functions out of this paper's own repositories and ran 8 of them in a sandbox. "Ran" means the function executed on a synthesized input and returned a value. It is not a reproduction of the paper's results.

RepositoryRoleRan
instadeepai/debatellm canonical 8 of 8
FunctionStatusWhere it lives
construct_agent_metrics Ran instadeepai/debatellm/debatellm/systems.py
code served (permissive licence) · get_code("bb1148f2cec420ce")
construct_debate_metrics Ran instadeepai/debatellm/debatellm/systems.py
code served (permissive licence) · get_code("0cdd7d0ef03c6c12")
construct_summary_message Ran instadeepai/debatellm/debatellm/utils/debate.py
code served (permissive licence) · get_code("804cb18667163780")
eval_on_batch Ran instadeepai/debatellm/debatellm/eval/eval_system.py
code served (permissive licence) · get_code("00df3fdd43bc6ce8")
load_openai_api_key Ran instadeepai/debatellm/debatellm/utils/openai.py
code served (permissive licence) · get_code("3e468a12610c5a77")
partial_format Ran instadeepai/debatellm/debatellm/utils/debate.py
code served (permissive licence) · get_code("63ceab3528839d6c")
remove_spaces_in_name Ran instadeepai/debatellm/debatellm/utils/debate.py
code served (permissive licence) · get_code("640440f246b1877d")
try_except_decorator Ran instadeepai/debatellm/debatellm/agents.py
code served (permissive licence) · get_code("fd00140a4206a01e")

Repositories linked to this paper

Some links come from the archived Papers with Code dataset (CC BY-SA 4.0): attribution and licence.

Abstract

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.

For agents

The same record, over MCP at https://syntology.ai/mcp:

get_harvested_code_for_paper("2311.17371")
get_code_for_paper("2311.17371")
have("2311.17371")

Connect an agent — have() is free.