Examining Inter-Consistency of Large Language Models Collaboration: An In-depth Analysis via Debate
Open accessAbstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown impressive capabilities in various applications, but they still face various inconsistency issues. Existing works primarily focus on the inconsistency issues within a single LLM, while we complementarily explore the inter-consistency among multiple LLMs for collaboration. To examine whether LLMs can collaborate effectively to achieve a consensus for a shared goal, we focus on commonsense reasoning, and introduce a formal debate framework (FORD) to conduct a three-stage debate among LLMs with real-world scenarios alignment: fair debate, mismatched debate, and roundtable debate. Through extensive experiments on various datasets, LLMs can effectively collaborate to reach a consensus despite noticeable inter-inconsistencies, but imbalances in their abilities can lead to domination by superior LLMs. Leveraging a more advanced LLM like GPT-4 as an authoritative judge can boost collaboration performance. Our work contributes to understanding the inter-consistency among LLMs and lays the foundation for developing future collaboration methods. Codes and data are available at https://github.com/Waste-Wood/FORD
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Concurrent studies also explore the multi-agent debate framework to enhance the reasoning ability of LLMs.
“Concurrent with our work, a few studies (Xiong et al., 2023;Du et al., 2023) also explore the multi-agent debate framework to enhance the reasoning ability of LLMs.”
From Encouraging Divergent Thinking in Large Language Models through Multi-Agent Debate (2024) · cites this paper as Xiong et al., 2023
Prior multiple LLM agents collaboration methods primarily focus on interaction structures between agents rather than the relationship between the number of agents and performance.
“However, these methods primarily focus on the interaction structures between LLM agents, rather than the relationship between the number of agents and performance.”
From More Agents Is All You Need (2024) · cites this paper as Xiong et al. (2023)
The Introduction (page not provided) says that multiple LLMs have been used to collaborate, with each targeting a different subtask or aspect. It does not characterize prior methods as primarily focused on interaction structures rather than the relationship between agent count and performance. Searches for that comparison found no passage making it. (LLM, conf=0.72)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 33
- Chandra Bhagavatula, Ronan Le Bras, Chaitanya Malaviya, Keisuke Sakaguchi, Ari Holtzman, Han- nah Rashkin, Doug Downey, Wen-tau Yih, and Yejin Choi. 2019. Abductive commonsense reasoning. In International Conference on Learning Representa- tions.
- Yonatan Bisk, Rowan Zellers, Jianfeng Gao, Yejin Choi, et al. 2020. Piqa: Reasoning about physical com- monsense in natural language. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 34, pages 7432-7439.
- Sébastien Bubeck, Varun Chandrasekaran, Ronen El- dan, Johannes Gehrke, Eric Horvitz, Ece Kamar, Peter Lee, Yin Tat Lee, Yuanzhi Li, Scott Lund- berg, et al. 2023. Sparks of artificial general intelli- gence: Early experiments with gpt-4. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.12712. · arXiv
- Bibo Cai, Xiao Ding, Zhouhao Sun, Bing Qin, Ting Liu, Lifeng Shang, et al. 2023. Self-supervised logic in- duction for explainable fuzzy temporal commonsense reasoning. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 37, pages 12580- 12588.
- Mark R Chassin, Robert W Galvin, et al. 1998. The ur- gent need to improve health care quality: Institute of medicine national roundtable on health care quality. Jama, 280(11):1000-1005.
- Hyung Won Chung, Le Hou, Shayne Longpre, Bar- ret Zoph, Yi Tay, William Fedus, Eric Li, Xuezhi Wang, Mostafa Dehghani, Siddhartha Brahma, et al. 2022. Scaling instruction-finetuned language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.11416. · arXiv
- Bhavana Dalvi, Peter Jansen, Oyvind Tafjord, Zhengnan Xie, Hannah Smith, Leighanna Pipatanangkura, and Peter Clark. 2021. Explaining answers with entail- ment trees. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Process- ing, pages 7358-7370.
- Li Du, Xiao Ding, Kai Xiong, Ting Liu, and Bing Qin. 2022a. e-care: a new dataset for exploring explain- able causal reasoning. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 432-446.
- Yao Fu, Hao Peng, Ashish Sabharwal, Peter Clark, and Tushar Khot. 2023. Complexity-based prompting for multi-step reasoning. International Conference on Learning Representations.
- Mor Geva, Daniel Khashabi, Elad Segal, Tushar Khot, Dan Roth, and Jonathan Berant. 2021. Did aristotle use a laptop? a question answering benchmark with implicit reasoning strategies. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 9:346- 361.
- Andrew Gordon, Zornitsa Kozareva, and Melissa Roem- mele. 2012. SemEval-2012 task 7: Choice of plau- sible alternatives: An evaluation of commonsense causal reasoning. In *SEM 2012: The First Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Seman- tics -Volume 1: Proceedings of the main conference and the shared task, and Volume 2: Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Semantic Eval- uation (SemEval 2012), pages 394-398, Montréal, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics.
- Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Steven Basart, Andy Zou, Mantas Mazeika, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. 2021. Measuring massive multitask language under- standing. In International Conference on Learning Representations.
- Dinesh Babu Jayagopi, Hayley Hung, Chuohao Yeo, and Daniel Gatica-Perez. 2009. Modeling dominance in group conversations using nonverbal activity cues. IEEE Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 17(3):501-513.
- Jaehun Jung, Lianhui Qin, Sean Welleck, Faeze Brah- man, Chandra Bhagavatula, Ronan Le Bras, and Yejin Choi. 2022. Maieutic prompting: Logically consistent reasoning with recursive explanations. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1266-1279, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Asso- ciation for Computational Linguistics.
- Takeshi Kojima, Shixiang Shane Gu, Machel Reid, Yu- taka Matsuo, and Yusuke Iwasawa. 2022. Large lan- guage models are zero-shot reasoners. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems.
- Yifei Li, Zeqi Lin, Shizhuo Zhang, Qiang Fu, Bei Chen, Jian-Guang Lou, and Weizhu Chen. 2022. On the advance of making language models better reasoners. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.02336. · arXiv
- Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, et al. 2022. Training language models to follow instruc- tions with human feedback. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:27730-27744.
- Joon Sung Park, Joseph C O'Brien, Carrie J Cai, Mered- ith Ringel Morris, Percy Liang, and Michael S Bernstein. 2023. Generative agents: Interactive simulacra of human behavior. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.03442. · arXiv
- Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J Liu. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text trans- former. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 21(1):5485-5551.
- Pritish Sahu, Michael Cogswell, Yunye Gong, and Ajay Divakaran. 2022. Unpacking large language models with conceptual consistency. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.15093. · arXiv
- Maarten Sap, Hannah Rashkin, Derek Chen, Ronan Le Bras, and Yejin Choi. 2019. Social iqa: Com- monsense reasoning about social interactions. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 4463-4473.
- Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Zhengbao Jiang, Fabio Petroni, Patrick Lewis, Gautier Izacard, Qingfei You, Christoforos Nalmpantis, Edouard Grave, and Sebas- tian Riedel. 2022. Peer: A collaborative language model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.11663. · arXiv
- Alon Talmor, Jonathan Herzig, Nicholas Lourie, and Jonathan Berant. 2019. Commonsenseqa: A question answering challenge targeting commonsense knowl- edge. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Tech- nologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4149-4158.
- Romal Thoppilan, Daniel De Freitas, Jamie Hall, Noam Shazeer, Apoorv Kulshreshtha, Heng-Tze Cheng, Alicia Jin, Taylor Bos, Leslie Baker, Yu Du, et al. 2022. Lamda: Language models for dialog applica- tions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.08239. · arXiv
- Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, et al. 2023. Llama: Open and effi- cient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971. · arXiv
- Boshi Wang, Xiang Deng, and Huan Sun. 2022a. Itera- tively prompt pre-trained language models for chain of thought. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Process- ing, pages 2714-2730.
- Xuezhi Wang, Jason Wei, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc Le, Ed Chi, and Denny Zhou. 2022b. Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.11171. · arXiv
- Yizhong Wang, Swaroop Mishra, Pegah Alipoormo- labashi, Yeganeh Kordi, Amirreza Mirzaei, Atharva Naik, Arjun Ashok, Arut Selvan Dhanasekaran, An- jana Arunkumar, David Stap, et al. 2022c. Super- naturalinstructions: Generalization via declarative instructions on 1600+ nlp tasks. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natu- ral Language Processing, pages 5085-5109.
- Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, brian ichter, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, and Denny Zhou. 2022b. Chain-of-thought prompt- ing elicits reasoning in large language models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 35, pages 24824-24837.
- Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Fei Xia, Ed H Chi, Quoc V Le, Denny Zhou, et al. 2022c. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits rea- soning in large language models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems.
- Chenfei Wu, Shengming Yin, Weizhen Qi, Xi- aodong Wang, Zecheng Tang, and Nan Duan. 2023. Visual chatgpt: Talking, drawing and edit- ing with visual foundation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.04671. · arXiv
- Kai Xiong, Xiao Ding, Zhongyang Li, Li Du, Ting Liu, Bing Qin, Yi Zheng, and Baoxing Huai. 2022. Reco: Reliable causal chain reasoning via structural causal recurrent neural networks. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 6426-6438.
- Zhuosheng Zhang, Aston Zhang, Mu Li, and Alex Smola. 2022. Automatic chain of thought prompt- ing in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.03493. · arXiv
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Encouraging Divergent Thinking in Large Language Models through Multi-Agent Debate
Liang, T., He, Z., Jiao, W., Wang, X., Wang, Y., Wang, R., Yang, Y., Shi, S., & Tu, Z. (2024) · Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp-main.992 · Cited by 274 · see citing works
Li, J., Zhang, Q., Yu, Y., Fu, Q., & Ye, D. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.05120 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
- Authors
- Xiong, K., Ding, X., Cao, Y., Liu, T., & Qin, B.
- Affiliations
- Harbin Institute of Technology (CN)
- Singapore Management University (SG)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- Pages
- 7572-7590
- arXiv
- 2305.11595
- OpenAlex
- W4389519889
- Cited by
- 45
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 17 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 8
- FWCI
- 7.97
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Funders
- National Natural Science Foundation of China (U22B2059, 62176079)
- Ministry of Education, India
- Natural Science Foundation of Heilongjiang Province (YQ2022F005)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Keywords
- large language models, agent cooperation, consensus, commonsense reasoning
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
