Daily Papers

Recent years have witnessed the rapid development of Large Language Model-based Multi-Agent Systems (MAS), which excel at collaborative decision-making and complex problem-solving. Recently, researchers have further investigated Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) frameworks, which enhance the reasoning and collaboration capabilities of MAS through information exchange and debate among multiple agents. However, existing approaches often rely on unguided initialization, causing agents to adopt identical reasoning paths that lead to the same errors. As a result, effective debate among agents is hindered, and the final outcome frequently degenerates into simple majority voting. To solve the above problem, in this paper, we introduce Dynamic Multi-Agent Debate (DynaDebate), which enhances the effectiveness of multi-agent debate through three key mechanisms: (1) Dynamic Path Generation and Allocation, which employs a dedicated Path Generation Agent to generate diverse and logical solution paths with adaptive redundancy; (2) Process-Centric Debate, which shifts the focus from surface-level outcome voting to rigorous step-by-step logic critique to ensure process correctness; (3) A Trigger-Based Verification Agent, which is activated upon disagreement and uses external tools to objectively resolve deadlocks. Extensive experiments demonstrate that DynaDebate achieves superior performance across various benchmarks, surpassing existing state-of-the-art MAD methods.

Debate is the process of exchanging viewpoints or convincing others on a particular issue. Recent research has provided empirical evidence that the persuasiveness of an argument is determined not only by language usage but also by communicator characteristics. Researchers have paid much attention to aspects of languages, such as linguistic features and discourse structures, but combining argument persuasiveness and impact with the social personae of the audience has not been explored due to the difficulty and complexity. We have observed the impressive simulation and personification capability of ChatGPT, indicating a giant pre-trained language model may function as an individual to provide personae and exert unique influences based on diverse background knowledge. Therefore, we propose a persona knowledge-aligned framework for argument quality assessment tasks from the audience side. This is the first work that leverages the emergence of ChatGPT and injects such audience personae knowledge into smaller language models via prompt tuning. The performance of our pipeline demonstrates significant and consistent improvement compared to competitive architectures.

Multi-Agent Debate~(MAD) has emerged as a promising paradigm for improving the performance of large language models through collaborative reasoning. Despite recent advances, the key factors driving MAD's effectiveness remain unclear. In this work, we disentangle MAD into two key components--Majority Voting and inter-agent Debate--and assess their respective contributions. Through extensive experiments across seven NLP benchmarks, we find that Majority Voting alone accounts for most of the performance gains typically attributed to MAD. To explain this, we propose a theoretical framework that models debate as a stochastic process. We prove that it induces a martingale over agents' belief trajectories, implying that debate alone does not improve expected correctness. Guided by these insights, we demonstrate that targeted interventions, by biasing the belief update toward correction, can meaningfully enhance debate effectiveness. Overall, our findings suggest that while MAD has potential, simple ensembling methods remain strong and more reliable alternatives in many practical settings. Code is released in https://github.com/deeplearning-wisc/debate-or-vote.

Multi-agent debate (MAD) has recently emerged as a promising framework for improving the reasoning performance of large language models (LLMs). Yet, whether LLM agents can genuinely engage in deliberative reasoning, beyond simple ensembling or majority voting, remains unclear. We address this question through a controlled study using the Knight--Knave--Spy logic puzzle, which enables precise, step-wise evaluation of debate outcomes and processes under verifiable ground truth. We systematically set up six structural and cognitive factors, including agent team size, composition, confidence visibility, debate order, debate depth, and task difficulty, to disentangle their respective effects on collective reasoning. Our results show that intrinsic reasoning strength and group diversity are the dominant drivers of debate success, while structural parameters such as order or confidence visibility offer limited gains. Beyond outcomes, process-level analyses identify key behavioral patterns: majority pressure suppresses independent correction, effective teams overturn incorrect consensus, and rational, validity-aligned reasoning most strongly predicts improvement. These findings provide valuable insights into how and why LLM debates succeed or fail, offering guidance for designing interpretable and truth-seeking multi-agent reasoning systems.

Traditionally, a debate usually requires a manual preparation process, including reading plenty of articles, selecting the claims, identifying the stances of the claims, seeking the evidence for the claims, etc. As the AI debate attracts more attention these years, it is worth exploring the methods to automate the tedious process involved in the debating system. In this work, we introduce a comprehensive and large dataset named IAM, which can be applied to a series of argument mining tasks, including claim extraction, stance classification, evidence extraction, etc. Our dataset is collected from over 1k articles related to 123 topics. Near 70k sentences in the dataset are fully annotated based on their argument properties (e.g., claims, stances, evidence, etc.). We further propose two new integrated argument mining tasks associated with the debate preparation process: (1) claim extraction with stance classification (CESC) and (2) claim-evidence pair extraction (CEPE). We adopt a pipeline approach and an end-to-end method for each integrated task separately. Promising experimental results are reported to show the values and challenges of our proposed tasks, and motivate future research on argument mining.

We present R-Debater, an agentic framework for generating multi-turn debates built on argumentative memory. Grounded in rhetoric and memory studies, the system views debate as a process of recalling and adapting prior arguments to maintain stance consistency, respond to opponents, and support claims with evidence. Specifically, R-Debater integrates a debate knowledge base for retrieving case-like evidence and prior debate moves with a role-based agent that composes coherent utterances across turns. We evaluate on standardized ORCHID debates, constructing a 1,000-item retrieval corpus and a held-out set of 32 debates across seven domains. Two tasks are evaluated: next-utterance generation, assessed by InspireScore (subjective, logical, and factual), and adversarial multi-turn simulations, judged by Debatrix (argument, source, language, and overall). Compared with strong LLM baselines, R-Debater achieves higher single-turn and multi-turn scores. Human evaluation with 20 experienced debaters further confirms its consistency and evidence use, showing that combining retrieval grounding with structured planning yields more faithful, stance-aligned, and coherent debates across turns.

The core premise of AI debate as a scalable oversight technique is that it is harder to lie convincingly than to refute a lie, enabling the judge to identify the correct position. Yet, existing debate experiments have relied on datasets with ground truth, where lying is reduced to defending an incorrect proposition. This overlooks a subjective dimension: lying also requires the belief that the claim defended is false. In this work, we apply debate to subjective questions and explicitly measure large language models' prior beliefs before experiments. Debaters were asked to select their preferred position, then presented with a judge persona deliberately designed to conflict with their identified priors. This setup tested whether models would adopt sycophantic strategies, aligning with the judge's presumed perspective to maximize persuasiveness, or remain faithful to their prior beliefs. We implemented and compared two debate protocols, sequential and simultaneous, to evaluate potential systematic biases. Finally, we assessed whether models were more persuasive and produced higher-quality arguments when defending positions consistent with their prior beliefs versus when arguing against them. Our main findings show that models tend to prefer defending stances aligned with the judge persona rather than their prior beliefs, sequential debate introduces significant bias favoring the second debater, models are more persuasive when defending positions aligned with their prior beliefs, and paradoxically, arguments misaligned with prior beliefs are rated as higher quality in pairwise comparison. These results can inform human judges to provide higher-quality training signals and contribute to more aligned AI systems, while revealing important aspects of human-AI interaction regarding persuasion dynamics in language models.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong potential and impressive performance in automating the generation and optimization of workflows. However, existing approaches are marked by limited reasoning capabilities, high computational demands, and significant resource requirements. To address these issues, we propose DebFlow, a framework that employs a debate mechanism to optimize workflows and integrates reflexion to improve based on previous experiences. We evaluated our method across six benchmark datasets, including HotpotQA, MATH, and ALFWorld. Our approach achieved a 3\% average performance improvement over the latest baselines, demonstrating its effectiveness in diverse problem domains. In particular, during training, our framework reduces resource consumption by 37\% compared to the state-of-the-art baselines. Additionally, we performed ablation studies. Removing the Debate component resulted in a 4\% performance drop across two benchmark datasets, significantly greater than the 2\% drop observed when the Reflection component was removed. These findings strongly demonstrate the critical role of Debate in enhancing framework performance, while also highlighting the auxiliary contribution of reflexion to overall optimization.

We test the robustness of debate as a method of scalable oversight by training models to debate with data generated via self-play. In a long-context reading comprehension task, we find that language model based evaluators answer questions more accurately when judging models optimized to win debates. By contrast, we find no such relationship for consultancy models trained to persuade a judge without an opposing debater present. In quantitative and qualitative comparisons between our debate models and novel consultancy baselines, we find evidence that debate training encourages stronger and more informative arguments, showing promise that it can help provide high-quality supervision for tasks that are difficult to directly evaluate.

Multi-agent debate (MAD) aims to improve large language model (LLM) reasoning by letting multiple agents exchange answers and then aggregate their opinions. Yet recent studies reveal that agents are not neutral: they are prone to identity-driven sycophancy and self-bias, uncritically adopting a peer's view or stubbornly adhering to their own prior output, undermining the reliability of debate. In this work, we present the first principled framework that joins sycophancy and self-bias to mitigate and quantify identity bias in MAD. First, we formalize the debate dynamics as an identity-weighted Bayesian update process. Second, we propose response anonymization: by removing identity markers from prompts, agents cannot distinguish "self" from "peer", which forces equal weights on agent identity, thereby reducing bias and improving trustworthiness. Third, we define the Identity Bias Coefficient (IBC), a principled bias metric that measures an agent's tendency to follow its peer versus itself. Empirical studies across multiple models and benchmarks confirm that identity bias is widespread, with sycophancy far more common than self-bias. Our findings highlight the need to ensure that MAD systems reason based on content rather than identity. Code is released in https://github.com/deeplearning-wisc/MAD-identity-bias.

Artificial intelligence systems are increasingly deployed in biomedical research. However, current evaluation frameworks may inadequately assess their effectiveness as research collaborators. This rapid review examines benchmarking practices for AI systems in preclinical biomedical research. Three major databases and two preprint servers were searched from January 1, 2018 to October 31, 2025, identifying 14 benchmarks that assess AI capabilities in literature understanding, experimental design, and hypothesis generation. The results revealed that all current benchmarks assess isolated component capabilities, including data analysis quality, hypothesis validity, and experimental protocol design. However, authentic research collaboration requires integrated workflows spanning multiple sessions, with contextual memory, adaptive dialogue, and constraint propagation. This gap implies that systems excelling on component benchmarks may fail as practical research co-pilots. A process-oriented evaluation framework is proposed that addresses four critical dimensions absent from current benchmarks: dialogue quality, workflow orchestration, session continuity, and researcher experience. These dimensions are essential for evaluating AI systems as research co-pilots rather than as isolated task executors.

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.

Recent work within the Argument Mining community has shown the applicability of Natural Language Processing systems for solving problems found within competitive debate. One of the most important tasks within competitive debate is for debaters to create high quality debate cases. We show that effective debate cases can be constructed using constrained shortest path traversals on Argumentative Semantic Knowledge Graphs. We study this potential in the context of a type of American Competitive Debate, called Policy Debate, which already has a large scale dataset targeting it called DebateSum. We significantly improve upon DebateSum by introducing 53180 new examples, as well as further useful metadata for every example, to the dataset. We leverage the txtai semantic search and knowledge graph toolchain to produce and contribute 9 semantic knowledge graphs built on this dataset. We create a unique method for evaluating which knowledge graphs are better in the context of producing policy debate cases. A demo which automatically generates debate cases, along with all other code and the Knowledge Graphs, are open-sourced and made available to the public here: https://github.com/Hellisotherpeople/DebateKG

Search engines and information platforms are increasingly scrutinized for their role in spreading misinformation. Traditional responses often focus on detecting falsehoods or verifying the ultimate validity of claims. This paper argues that such a validity-centered framing is inadequate for the epistemic challenges of search environments.

Multi-agent debate has been shown to improve reasoning in large language models (LLMs). However, it is compute-intensive, requiring generation of long transcripts before answering questions. To address this inefficiency, we develop a framework that distills multi-agent debate into a single LLM through a two-stage fine-tuning pipeline combining debate structure learning with internalization via dynamic reward scheduling and length clipping. Across multiple models and benchmarks, our internalized models match or exceed explicit multi-agent debate performance using up to 93% fewer tokens. We then investigate the mechanistic basis of this capability through activation steering, finding that internalization creates agent-specific subspaces: interpretable directions in activation space corresponding to different agent perspectives. We further demonstrate a practical application: by instilling malicious agents into the LLM through internalized debate, then applying negative steering to suppress them, we show that distillation makes harmful behaviors easier to localize and control with smaller reductions in general performance compared to steering base models. Our findings offer a new perspective for understanding multi-agent capabilities in distilled models and provide practical guidelines for controlling internalized reasoning behaviors. Code available at https://github.com/johnsk95/latent_agents

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.

Large language models frequently encounter conflicts between their parametric knowledge and contextual input, often resulting in factual inconsistencies or hallucinations. We propose Self-Reflective Debate for Contextual Reliability (SR-DCR), a lightweight framework that integrates token-level self-confidence with an asymmetric multi-agent debate to adjudicate such conflicts. A critic, deprived of context, challenges a defender who argues from the given passage; a judge model evaluates the debate and determines the context's reliability. The final answer is selected by combining the verdict with model confidence. Experiments on the ClashEval benchmark demonstrate that SR-DCR consistently enhances robustness to misleading context while maintaining accuracy on trustworthy inputs, outperforming both classical debate and confidence-only baselines with minimal computational overhead. The code is available at https://github.com/smiles724/Self-Reflective-Debates.

Automated agent design improves agent harnesses through iterative revision, evaluation, and feedback summarization. Existing methods are largely candidate-centric: cross-round experience is organized around candidate agents, which leaves the repair progress implicit. This causes inefficient repair targeting, slow consolidation of partial progress, and propagation of ineffective interventions across rounds. Therefore, we formulate issue-centric agent optimization, in which repair progress is carried forward as an explicit persistent issue state to guide optimization, rather than re-derived from candidate history in each round. We instantiate the formulation in ADIAS, a framework for automated full-code agent design with two mechanisms. A persistent issue state maintains stable issue identities, lifecycle status, supporting evidence, and intervention-outcome histories. Issue-guided optimization uses this state to jointly propose repair targets and revision directions for subsequent focused full-code modification. Across five interactive benchmarks, ADIAS outperforms the strongest baseline by 25.2% on average and achieves consistent gains across four backbone models. Controlled ablations further show that removing persistent issue state or replacing issue-centric revision with candidate-centric policies leads to performance drops of up to 40.7%.

Accurately modeling opinion change through social interactions is crucial for addressing issues like misinformation and polarization. While role-playing large language models (LLMs) offer a promising way to simulate human-like interactions, existing research shows that single-agent alignment does not guarantee authentic multi-agent group dynamics. Current LLM role-play setups often produce unnatural dynamics (e.g., premature convergence), without an empirical benchmark to measure authentic human opinion trajectories. To bridge this gap, we introduce DEBATE, the first large-scale empirical benchmark explicitly designed to evaluate the authenticity of the interaction between multi-agent role-playing LLMs. DEBATE contains 29,417 messages from multi-round debate conversations among over 2,792 U.S.-based participants discussing 107 controversial topics, capturing both publicly-expressed messages and privately-reported opinions. Using DEBATE, we systematically evaluate and identify critical discrepancies between simulated and authentic group dynamics. We further demonstrate DEBATE's utility for aligning LLMs with human behavior through supervised fine-tuning, achieving improvements in surface-level metrics (e.g., ROUGE-L and message length) while highlighting limitations in deeper semantic alignment (e.g., semantic similarity). Our findings highlight both the potential and current limitations of role-playing LLM agents for realistically simulating human-like social dynamics.

Making LLMs speak for different, especially minority groups of people, and generate statements supporting their diverse or even controversial perspectives is critical to creating an inclusive environment. However, existing LLMs lack sufficient controllability to the stance of their generated content, which often contains inconsistent, neutral, or biased statements. In this paper, we improve the controllability of LLMs in generating statements supporting an argument the user defined in the prompt. We find that multi-round debates between two LLMs with opposite stances generate higher-quality and more salient statements for each, which are important training data to improve the controllability of LLMs. Motivated by this, we develop a novel debate & tuning (DEBATUNE) pipeline finetuning LLMs to generate the statements obtained via debate. To examine DEBATUNE, we curate the largest dataset of debate topics so far, which covers 710 controversial topics and corresponding arguments for each topic. Evaluations by the GPT-4 judge with a novel controversy controllability metric show that LLMs' capability of generating diverse perspectives is significantly improved by DEBATUNE. Moreover, such controllability can be generalized to unseen topics, generating high-quality statements supporting controversial arguments.

As frontier language models increasingly saturate standard QA benchmarks, concerns about data contamination, memorization, and escalating dataset creation costs persist. We propose a debate-driven evaluation paradigm that transforms any existing QA dataset into structured adversarial debates--where one model is given the official answer to defend, and another constructs and defends an alternative answer--adjudicated by a judge model blind to the correct solution. By forcing multi-round argumentation, this approach substantially increases difficulty while penalizing shallow memorization, yet reuses QA items to reduce curation overhead. We make two main contributions: (1) an evaluation pipeline to systematically convert QA tasks into debate-based assessments, and (2) a public benchmark that demonstrates our paradigm's effectiveness on a subset of MMLU-Pro questions, complete with standardized protocols and reference models. Empirical results validate the robustness of the method and its effectiveness against data contamination--a Llama 3.1 model fine-tuned on test questions showed dramatic accuracy improvements (50% -> 82%) but performed worse in debates. Results also show that even weaker judges can reliably differentiate stronger debaters, highlighting how debate-based evaluation can scale to future, more capable systems while maintaining a fraction of the cost of creating new benchmarks. Overall, our framework underscores that "pretraining on the test set is no longer all you need," offering a sustainable path for measuring the genuine reasoning ability of advanced language models.

Evaluating LLMs' instruction-following ability in multi-topic dialogues is essential yet challenging. Existing benchmarks are limited to a fixed number of turns, susceptible to saturation and failing to account for users' interactive experience. In this work, we propose a novel framework featuring a three-layer tracking mechanism and a query synthesis agent to mimic sequential user behaviors. Grounded in Flow Theory, we introduce process-centric metrics and terminate a conversational evaluation only upon exhausting user patience. Leveraging this framework, we present EvolIF, an evolving benchmark covering 12 constraint groups. Our analysis reveals deficiencies in failure recovery and fine-grained instruction following, with performance stratification becoming evident as conversational depth increases. GPT-5 demonstrates the most sustained resilience, maintaining a 66.40% robustness score, outperforming Gemini-3-Pro by 5.59%, while other models lag behind. Data and code will be released at https://github.com/JiaQiSJTU/EvolIF.

Multi-agent large language model (LLM) and vision-language model (VLM) debate systems employ specialized roles for complex problem-solving, yet model specializations are not leveraged to decide which model should fill which role. We propose dynamic role assignment, a framework that runs a Meta-Debate to select suitable agents before the actual debate. The meta-debate has two stages: (1) proposal, where candidates provide role-tailored arguments, and (2) peer review, where proposals are scored with data and role-specific criteria to choose the best agent for each position. We evaluate our method on LLM problem solving benchmarks. Applied on top of existing debate systems, our approach consistently outperforms uniform assignments (filling all roles with the same model) by up to 74.8% and random assignments (assigning models to roles without considering their suitability) by up to 29.7%, depending on the task and the specific assignment. This work establishes a new paradigm for multi-agent system design, shifting from static agent deployment to dynamic and capability-aware selection.

Process-driven dialogue systems, which operate under strict predefined process constraints, are essential in customer service and equipment maintenance scenarios. Although Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown remarkable progress in dialogue and reasoning, they still struggle to solve these strictly constrained dialogue tasks. To address this challenge, we construct Process Flow Dialogue (PFDial) dataset, which contains 12,705 high-quality Chinese dialogue instructions derived from 440 flowcharts containing 5,055 process nodes. Based on PlantUML specification, each UML flowchart is converted into atomic dialogue units i.e., structured five-tuples. Experimental results demonstrate that a 7B model trained with merely 800 samples, and a 0.5B model trained on total data both can surpass 90% accuracy. Additionally, the 8B model can surpass GPT-4o up to 43.88% with an average of 11.00%. We further evaluate models' performance on challenging backward transitions in process flows and conduct an in-depth analysis of various dataset formats to reveal their impact on model performance in handling decision and sequential branches. The data is released in https://github.com/KongLongGeFDU/PFDial.

Equipping agents with the capacity to justify made decisions using supporting evidence represents a cornerstone of accountable decision-making. Furthermore, ensuring that justifications are in line with human expectations and societal norms is vital, especially in high-stakes situations such as healthcare. In this work, we propose the use of a debate-based reward model for reinforcement learning agents, where the outcome of a zero-sum debate game quantifies the justifiability of a decision in a particular state. This reward model is then used to train a justifiable policy, whose decisions can be more easily corroborated with supporting evidence. In the debate game, two argumentative agents take turns providing supporting evidence for two competing decisions. Given the proposed evidence, a proxy of a human judge evaluates which decision is better justified. We demonstrate the potential of our approach in learning policies for prescribing and justifying treatment decisions of septic patients. We show that augmenting the reward with the feedback signal generated by the debate-based reward model yields policies highly favored by the judge when compared to the policy obtained solely from the environment rewards, while hardly sacrificing any performance. Moreover, in terms of the overall performance and justifiability of trained policies, the debate-based feedback is comparable to the feedback obtained from an ideal judge proxy that evaluates decisions using the full information encoded in the state. This suggests that the debate game outputs key information contained in states that is most relevant for evaluating decisions, which in turn substantiates the practicality of combining our approach with human-in-the-loop evaluations. Lastly, we showcase that agents trained via multi-agent debate learn to propose evidence that is resilient to refutations and closely aligns with human preferences.

Claim verification is critical for enhancing digital literacy. However, the state-of-the-art single-LLM methods struggle with complex claim verification that involves multi-faceted evidences. Inspired by real-world fact-checking practices, we propose DebateCV, the first claim verification framework that adopts a debate-driven methodology using multiple LLM agents. In our framework, two Debaters take opposing stances on a claim and engage in multi-round argumentation, while a Moderator evaluates the arguments and renders a verdict with justifications. To further improve the performance of the Moderator, we introduce a novel post-training strategy that leverages synthetic debate data generated by the zero-shot DebateCV, effectively addressing the scarcity of real-world debate-driven claim verification data. Experimental results show that our method outperforms existing claim verification methods under varying levels of evidence quality. Our code and dataset are publicly available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/DebateCV-6781.

Controversy is a reflection of our zeitgeist, and an important aspect to any discourse. The rise of large language models (LLMs) as conversational systems has increased public reliance on these systems for answers to their various questions. Consequently, it is crucial to systematically examine how these models respond to questions that pertaining to ongoing debates. However, few such datasets exist in providing human-annotated labels reflecting the contemporary discussions. To foster research in this area, we propose a novel construction of a controversial questions dataset, expanding upon the publicly released Quora Question Pairs Dataset. This dataset presents challenges concerning knowledge recency, safety, fairness, and bias. We evaluate different LLMs using a subset of this dataset, illuminating how they handle controversial issues and the stances they adopt. This research ultimately contributes to our understanding of LLMs' interaction with controversial issues, paving the way for improvements in their comprehension and handling of complex societal debates.

Prior work in Argument Mining frequently alludes to its potential applications in automatic debating systems. Despite this focus, almost no datasets or models exist which apply natural language processing techniques to problems found within competitive formal debate. To remedy this, we present the DebateSum dataset. DebateSum consists of 187,386 unique pieces of evidence with corresponding argument and extractive summaries. DebateSum was made using data compiled by competitors within the National Speech and Debate Association over a 7-year period. We train several transformer summarization models to benchmark summarization performance on DebateSum. We also introduce a set of fasttext word-vectors trained on DebateSum called debate2vec. Finally, we present a search engine for this dataset which is utilized extensively by members of the National Speech and Debate Association today. The DebateSum search engine is available to the public here: http://www.debate.cards

AI systems deployed in legal workflows hallucinate at rates that aggregate metrics report at ~52%, but this average conceals where errors concentrate and in which direction they run, leaving compliance officers without an actionable signal for trustworthy deployment. We present LegalHalluLens, an auditing framework with three components: typed hallucination profiles across four legally-motivated claim categories (numeric, temporal, obligation/entitlement, factual) over CUAD (Hendrycks et al., 2021); a Risk Direction Index (RDI) that reduces omission-versus-invention bias to a single deployment-comparable scalar; and a typed debate pipeline calibrated to both magnitudes and directions. Across 510 contracts and 249,252 clause-level instances we measure a within-model gap of approximately 38-40 pp between obligation/numeric and temporal claims that aggregate reporting hides, and show that two systems with matched 52% rates can carry opposite RDIs. The debate pipeline reduces fabricated detections by 45% with per-category gains tracking the diagnosis, matching commercial APIs with a substantially smaller backbone (4B active parameters). Typed profiles and RDI surface failure modes that aggregate metrics hide; we further show these diagnostics serve as calibration inputs for multi-agent debate pipelines, where Skeptic challenges and asymmetric gates targeted at measured failure modes outperform generically-tuned debate. The framework supports direction-aware procurement, accountability, and agent design for legal AI deployed in the wild.

Multi-agent debate (MAD) is widely used to improve large language model (LLM) performance through test-time scaling, yet recent work shows that vanilla MAD often underperforms simple majority vote despite higher computational cost. Studies show that, under homogeneous agents and uniform belief updates, debate preserves expected correctness and therefore cannot reliably improve outcomes. Drawing on findings from human deliberation and collective decision-making, we identify two key mechanisms missing from vanilla MAD: (i) diversity of initial viewpoints and (ii) explicit, calibrated confidence communication. We propose two lightweight interventions. First, a diversity-aware initialisation that selects a more diverse pool of candidate answers, increasing the likelihood that a correct hypothesis is present at the start of debate. Second, a confidence-modulated debate protocol in which agents express calibrated confidence and condition their updates on others' confidence. We show theoretically that diversity-aware initialisation improves the prior probability of MAD success without changing the underlying update dynamics, while confidence-modulated updates enable debate to systematically drift to the correct hypothesis. Empirically, across six reasoning-oriented QA benchmarks, our methods consistently outperform vanilla MAD and majority vote. Our results connect human deliberation with LLM-based debate and demonstrate that simple, principled modifications can substantially enhance debate effectiveness.

As language models regularly make mistakes when solving math problems, automated identification of errors in the reasoning process becomes increasingly significant for their scalable oversight. In this paper, we introduce ProcessBench for measuring the ability to identify erroneous steps in mathematical reasoning. It consists of 3,400 test cases, primarily focused on competition- and Olympiad-level math problems. Each test case contains a step-by-step solution with error location annotated by human experts. Models are required to identify the earliest step that contains an error, or conclude that all steps are correct. We conduct extensive evaluation on ProcessBench, involving two types of models: process reward models (PRMs) and critic models, where for the latter we prompt general language models to critique each solution step by step. We draw two main observations: (1) Existing PRMs typically fail to generalize to more challenging math problems beyond GSM8K and MATH. They underperform both critic models (i.e., prompted general language models) and our own trained PRM that is straightforwardly fine-tuned on the PRM800K dataset. (2) The best open-source model, QwQ-32B-Preview, has demonstrated the critique capability competitive with the proprietary model GPT-4o, despite that it still lags behind the reasoning-specialized o1-mini. We hope ProcessBench can foster future research in reasoning process assessment, paving the way toward scalable oversight of language models.

Scalable oversight protocols aim to enable humans to accurately supervise superhuman AI. In this paper we study debate, where two AI's compete to convince a judge; consultancy, where a single AI tries to convince a judge that asks questions; and compare to a baseline of direct question-answering, where the judge just answers outright without the AI. We use large language models (LLMs) as both AI agents and as stand-ins for human judges, taking the judge models to be weaker than agent models. We benchmark on a diverse range of asymmetries between judges and agents, extending previous work on a single extractive QA task with information asymmetry, to also include mathematics, coding, logic and multimodal reasoning asymmetries. We find that debate outperforms consultancy across all tasks when the consultant is randomly assigned to argue for the correct/incorrect answer. Comparing debate to direct question answering, the results depend on the type of task: in extractive QA tasks with information asymmetry debate outperforms direct question answering, but in other tasks without information asymmetry the results are mixed. Previous work assigned debaters/consultants an answer to argue for. When we allow them to instead choose which answer to argue for, we find judges are less frequently convinced by the wrong answer in debate than in consultancy. Further, we find that stronger debater models increase judge accuracy, though more modestly than in previous studies.

This paper presents a pilot study aimed at introducing multi-agent debate into multimodal reasoning. The study addresses two key challenges: the trivialization of opinions resulting from excessive summarization and the diversion of focus caused by distractor concepts introduced from images. These challenges stem from the inductive (bottom-up) nature of existing debating schemes. To address the issue, we propose a deductive (top-down) debating approach called Blueprint Debate on Graphs (BDoG). In BDoG, debates are confined to a blueprint graph to prevent opinion trivialization through world-level summarization. Moreover, by storing evidence in branches within the graph, BDoG mitigates distractions caused by frequent but irrelevant concepts. Extensive experiments validate that BDoG is able to achieve state-of-the-art results in ScienceQA and MMBench with significant improvements over previous methods. The source code can be accessed at https://github.com/thecharm/BDoG.

Current large-language models (LLMs) typically adopt a fixed reasoning strategy, either simple or complex, for all questions, regardless of their difficulty. This neglect of variation in task and reasoning process complexity leads to an imbalance between performance and efficiency. Existing methods attempt to implement training-free fast-slow thinking system switching to handle problems of varying difficulty, but are limited by coarse-grained solution-level strategy adjustments. To address this issue, we propose a novel reasoning paradigm: Process-Level Adaptive Thinking Mode Switching (PATS), which enables LLMs to dynamically adjust their reasoning strategy based on the difficulty of each step, optimizing the balance between accuracy and computational efficiency. Our approach integrates Process Reward Models (PRMs) with Beam Search, incorporating progressive mode switching and bad-step penalty mechanisms. Experiments on diverse mathematical benchmarks demonstrate that our methodology achieves high accuracy while maintaining moderate token usage. This study emphasizes the significance of process-level, difficulty-aware reasoning strategy adaptation, offering valuable insights into efficient inference for LLMs.

In this paper, we offer a guide for researchers on evaluating reasoning in language models, building the case that reasoning should be assessed through evidence of adaptive, multi-step search rather than final-answer accuracy alone. Under an evaluation-oriented definition, reasoning requires selecting intermediate steps and halting according to input-dependent conditions, which we formalize as a search-like procedure. We show that single forward passes in scalable architectures are structurally limited in their ability to realize such variable-depth computation, motivating intermediate decoding and externalized reasoning traces as appropriate evaluation interfaces. Central to our argument is that final-answer accuracy alone is an insufficient measure of reasoning, because it provides little ability to diagnose or debug the underlying processes that produce individual solutions in frontier models. We therefore argue for a shift toward process-based evaluation, in which reasoning is assessed through the faithfulness and validity of intermediate reasoning traces as first-class evaluation targets.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have advanced autonomous agents' planning and decision-making, yet they struggle with complex tasks requiring diverse expertise and multi-step reasoning. Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) systems, introduced in NLP research, address this gap by enabling structured debates among LLM-based agents to refine solutions iteratively. MAD promotes divergent thinking through role-specific agents, dynamic interactions, and structured decision-making. Recognizing parallels between Software Engineering (SE) and collaborative human problem-solving, this study investigates MAD's effectiveness on two SE tasks. We adapt MAD systems from NLP, analyze agent interactions to assess consensus-building and iterative refinement, and propose two enhancements targeting observed weaknesses. Our findings show that structured debate and collaboration improve problem-solving and yield strong performance in some cases, highlighting MAD's potential for SE automation while identifying areas for exploration.

To make AI systems broadly useful for challenging real-world tasks, we need them to learn complex human goals and preferences. One approach to specifying complex goals asks humans to judge during training which agent behaviors are safe and useful, but this approach can fail if the task is too complicated for a human to directly judge. To help address this concern, we propose training agents via self play on a zero sum debate game. Given a question or proposed action, two agents take turns making short statements up to a limit, then a human judges which of the agents gave the most true, useful information. In an analogy to complexity theory, debate with optimal play can answer any question in PSPACE given polynomial time judges (direct judging answers only NP questions). In practice, whether debate works involves empirical questions about humans and the tasks we want AIs to perform, plus theoretical questions about the meaning of AI alignment. We report results on an initial MNIST experiment where agents compete to convince a sparse classifier, boosting the classifier's accuracy from 59.4% to 88.9% given 6 pixels and from 48.2% to 85.2% given 4 pixels. Finally, we discuss theoretical and practical aspects of the debate model, focusing on potential weaknesses as the model scales up, and we propose future human and computer experiments to test these properties.

A promising approach for improving reasoning in large language models is to use process reward models (PRMs). PRMs provide feedback at each step of a multi-step reasoning trace, potentially improving credit assignment over outcome reward models (ORMs) that only provide feedback at the final step. However, collecting dense, per-step human labels is not scalable, and training PRMs from automatically-labeled data has thus far led to limited gains. To improve a base policy by running search against a PRM or using it as dense rewards for reinforcement learning (RL), we ask: "How should we design process rewards?". Our key insight is that, to be effective, the process reward for a step should measure progress: a change in the likelihood of producing a correct response in the future, before and after taking the step, corresponding to the notion of step-level advantages in RL. Crucially, this progress should be measured under a prover policy distinct from the base policy. We theoretically characterize the set of good provers and our results show that optimizing process rewards from such provers improves exploration during test-time search and online RL. In fact, our characterization shows that weak prover policies can substantially improve a stronger base policy, which we also observe empirically. We validate our claims by training process advantage verifiers (PAVs) to predict progress under such provers, and show that compared to ORMs, test-time search against PAVs is >8% more accurate, and 1.5-5times more compute-efficient. Online RL with dense rewards from PAVs enables one of the first results with 5-6times gain in sample efficiency, and >6% gain in accuracy, over ORMs.

Reinforcement learning (RL) has become a promising paradigm for optimizing Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) in complex reasoning tasks. However, traditional outcome-based RL approaches often suffer from reward sparsity and inefficient credit assignment, as coarse-grained scalar rewards fail to identify specific erroneous steps within long-horizon trajectories. This ambiguity frequently leads to "process hallucinations", where models reach correct answers through flawed logic or redundant retrieval steps. Although recent process-aware approaches attempt to mitigate this via static preference learning or heuristic reward shaping, they often lack the on-policy exploration capabilities required to decouple step-level credit from global outcomes. To address these challenges, we propose ProRAG, a process-supervised reinforcement learning framework designed to integrate learned step-level supervision into the online optimization loop. Our framework consists of four stages: (1) Supervised Policy Warmup to initialize the model with a structured reasoning format; (2) construction of an MCTS-based Process Reward Model (PRM) to quantify intermediate reasoning quality; (3) PRM-Guided Reasoning Refinement to align the policy with fine-grained process preferences; and (4) Process-Supervised Reinforcement Learning with a dual-granularity advantage mechanism. By aggregating step-level process rewards with global outcome signals, ProRAG provides precise feedback for every action. Extensive experiments on five multi-hop reasoning benchmarks demonstrate that ProRAG achieves superior overall performance compared to strong outcome-based and process-aware RL baselines, particularly on complex long-horizon tasks, validating the effectiveness of fine-grained process supervision. The code and model are available at https://github.com/lilinwz/ProRAG.

Issue resolution has made remarkable progress thanks to the advanced reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs). Recently, agent-based frameworks such as SWE-agent have further advanced this progress by enabling autonomous, tool-using agents to tackle complex software engineering tasks. While existing agent-based issue resolution approaches are primarily based on agents' independent explorations, they often get stuck in local solutions and fail to identify issue patterns that span across different parts of the codebase. To address this limitation, we propose SWE-Debate, a competitive multi-agent debate framework that encourages diverse reasoning paths and achieves more consolidated issue localization. SWE-Debate first creates multiple fault propagation traces as localization proposals by traversing a code dependency graph. Then, it organizes a three-round debate among specialized agents, each embodying distinct reasoning perspectives along the fault propagation trace. This structured competition enables agents to collaboratively converge on a consolidated fix plan. Finally, this consolidated fix plan is integrated into an MCTS-based code modification agent for patch generation. Experiments on the SWE-bench benchmark show that SWE-Debate achieves new state-of-the-art results in open-source agent frameworks and outperforms baselines by a large margin.

Many math- and science-oriented agent systems use hierarchical designs with specialized reviewer roles, assuming that a dedicated review stage should help turn wrong candidates into correct ones. We test this assumption on 4,181 verifier-grounded Omni-MATH problems using matched gpt-oss-120b actors. Collaboration adds little on the easiest tiers, but from tier 4 onward the gains open sharply; in this harder regime, broadcast-style peer discussion reaches higher final accuracy than a planner-executor-reviewer pipeline (PER). We ask whether this gap is explained by reviewer quality or by whether critique changes the next answer the protocol carries forward. It is not explained by reviewer precision alone: PER's reviewer is more precise than broadcast's (0.861 vs. 0.644), yet evaluator-verified useful critique is much less likely to change the next candidate and produces lower reviewer-guided repair. These results show that reviewer detection quality and critique uptake are empirically separable. Within matched PER interventions, forcing explicit acknowledgment lowers final accuracy, while embedding reviewer guidance directly in the solver's working context partially improves follow-through without closing the gap. Overall, reviewer-centric evaluation can overstate system quality: a protocol may spot errors well yet still fail to solve more problems if it does not act on those critiques.

The remarkable growth in large language model (LLM) capabilities has spurred exploration into multi-agent systems, with debate frameworks emerging as a promising avenue for enhanced problem-solving. These multi-agent debate (MAD) approaches, where agents collaboratively present, critique, and refine arguments, potentially offer improved reasoning, robustness, and diverse perspectives over monolithic models. Despite prior studies leveraging MAD, a systematic understanding of its effectiveness compared to self-agent methods, particularly under varying conditions, remains elusive. This paper seeks to fill this gap by conceptualizing MAD as a test-time computational scaling technique, distinguished by collaborative refinement and diverse exploration capabilities. We conduct a comprehensive empirical investigation comparing MAD with strong self-agent test-time scaling baselines on mathematical reasoning and safety-related tasks. Our study systematically examines the influence of task difficulty, model scale, and agent diversity on MAD's performance. Key findings reveal that, for mathematical reasoning, MAD offers limited advantages over self-agent scaling but becomes more effective with increased problem difficulty and decreased model capability, while agent diversity shows little benefit. Conversely, for safety tasks, MAD's collaborative refinement can increase vulnerability, but incorporating diverse agent configurations facilitates a gradual reduction in attack success through the collaborative refinement process. We believe our findings provide critical guidance for the future development of more effective and strategically deployed MAD systems.

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. Codes: https://github.com/Skytliang/Multi-Agents-Debate

Peer reviewing is a central process in modern research and essential for ensuring high quality and reliability of published work. At the same time, it is a time-consuming process and increasing interest in emerging fields often results in a high review workload, especially for senior researchers in this area. How to cope with this problem is an open question and it is vividly discussed across all major conferences. In this work, we propose an Argument Mining based approach for the assistance of editors, meta-reviewers, and reviewers. We demonstrate that the decision process in the field of scientific publications is driven by arguments and automatic argument identification is helpful in various use-cases. One of our findings is that arguments used in the peer-review process differ from arguments in other domains making the transfer of pre-trained models difficult. Therefore, we provide the community with a new peer-review dataset from different computer science conferences with annotated arguments. In our extensive empirical evaluation, we show that Argument Mining can be used to efficiently extract the most relevant parts from reviews, which are paramount for the publication decision. The process remains interpretable since the extracted arguments can be highlighted in a review without detaching them from their context.

As AI systems are used to answer more difficult questions and potentially help create new knowledge, judging the truthfulness of their outputs becomes more difficult and more important. How can we supervise unreliable experts, which have access to the truth but may not accurately report it, to give answers that are systematically true and don't just superficially seem true, when the supervisor can't tell the difference between the two on their own? In this work, we show that debate between two unreliable experts can help a non-expert judge more reliably identify the truth. We collect a dataset of human-written debates on hard reading comprehension questions where the judge has not read the source passage, only ever seeing expert arguments and short quotes selectively revealed by 'expert' debaters who have access to the passage. In our debates, one expert argues for the correct answer, and the other for an incorrect answer. Comparing debate to a baseline we call consultancy, where a single expert argues for only one answer which is correct half of the time, we find that debate performs significantly better, with 84% judge accuracy compared to consultancy's 74%. Debates are also more efficient, being 68% of the length of consultancies. By comparing human to AI debaters, we find evidence that with more skilled (in this case, human) debaters, the performance of debate goes up but the performance of consultancy goes down. Our error analysis also supports this trend, with 46% of errors in human debate attributable to mistakes by the honest debater (which should go away with increased skill); whereas 52% of errors in human consultancy are due to debaters obfuscating the relevant evidence from the judge (which should become worse with increased skill). Overall, these results show that debate is a promising approach for supervising increasingly capable but potentially unreliable AI systems.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used for boosting organizational efficiency and automating tasks. While not originally designed for complex cognitive processes, recent efforts have further extended to employ LLMs in activities such as reasoning, planning, and decision-making. In business processes, such abilities could be invaluable for leveraging on the massive corpora LLMs have been trained on for gaining deep understanding of such processes. In this work, we plant the seeds for the development of a benchmark to assess the ability of LLMs to reason about causal and process perspectives of business operations. We refer to this view as Causally-augmented Business Processes (BP^C). The core of the benchmark comprises a set of BP^C related situations, a set of questions about these situations, and a set of deductive rules employed to systematically resolve the ground truth answers to these questions. Also with the power of LLMs, the seed is then instantiated into a larger-scale set of domain-specific situations and questions. Reasoning on BP^C is of crucial importance for process interventions and process improvement. Our benchmark could be used in one of two possible modalities: testing the performance of any target LLM and training an LLM to advance its capability to reason about BP^C.

As AI systems progress, we rely more on them to make decisions with us and for us. To ensure that such decisions are aligned with human values, it is imperative for us to understand not only what decisions they make but also how they come to those decisions. Reasoning language models, which provide both final responses and (partially transparent) intermediate thinking traces, present a timely opportunity to study AI procedural reasoning. Unlike math and code problems which often have objectively correct answers, moral dilemmas are an excellent testbed for process-focused evaluation because they allow for multiple defensible conclusions. To do so, we present MoReBench: 1,000 moral scenarios, each paired with a set of rubric criteria that experts consider essential to include (or avoid) when reasoning about the scenarios. MoReBench contains over 23 thousand criteria including identifying moral considerations, weighing trade-offs, and giving actionable recommendations to cover cases on AI advising humans moral decisions as well as making moral decisions autonomously. Separately, we curate MoReBench-Theory: 150 examples to test whether AI can reason under five major frameworks in normative ethics. Our results show that scaling laws and existing benchmarks on math, code, and scientific reasoning tasks fail to predict models' abilities to perform moral reasoning. Models also show partiality towards specific moral frameworks (e.g., Benthamite Act Utilitarianism and Kantian Deontology), which might be side effects of popular training paradigms. Together, these benchmarks advance process-focused reasoning evaluation towards safer and more transparent AI.

AI has become pervasive in recent years, but state-of-the-art approaches predominantly neglect the need for AI systems to be contestable. Instead, contestability is advocated by AI guidelines (e.g. by the OECD) and regulation of automated decision-making (e.g. GDPR). In this position paper we explore how contestability can be achieved computationally in and for AI. We argue that contestable AI requires dynamic (human-machine and/or machine-machine) explainability and decision-making processes, whereby machines can (i) interact with humans and/or other machines to progressively explain their outputs and/or their reasoning as well as assess grounds for contestation provided by these humans and/or other machines, and (ii) revise their decision-making processes to redress any issues successfully raised during contestation. Given that much of the current AI landscape is tailored to static AIs, the need to accommodate contestability will require a radical rethinking, that, we argue, computational argumentation is ideally suited to support.

Subjects change frequently in moderated debates with several participants, such as in parliamentary sessions, electoral debates, and trials. Partitioning a debate into blocks with the same subject is essential for understanding. Often a moderator is responsible for defining when a new block begins so that the task of automatically partitioning a moderated debate can focus solely on the moderator's behavior. In this paper, we (i) propose a new algorithm, DEBACER, which partitions moderated debates; (ii) carry out a comparative study between conventional and BERTimbau pipelines; and (iii) validate DEBACER applying it to the minutes of the Assembly of the Republic of Portugal. Our results show the effectiveness of DEBACER. Keywords: Natural Language Processing, Political Documents, Spoken Text Processing, Speech Split, Dialogue Partitioning.

Large Language Models (LLMs) need to adapt their predictions to diverse cultural contexts to benefit diverse communities across the world. While previous efforts have focused on single-LLM, single-turn approaches, we propose to exploit the complementary strengths of multiple LLMs to promote cultural adaptability. We introduce a Multi-Agent Debate framework, where two LLM-based agents debate over a cultural scenario and collaboratively reach a final decision. We propose two variants: one where either LLM agents exclusively debate and another where they dynamically choose between self-reflection and debate during their turns. We evaluate these approaches on 7 open-weight LLMs (and 21 LLM combinations) using the NormAd-ETI benchmark for social etiquette norms in 75 countries. Experiments show that debate improves both overall accuracy and cultural group parity over single-LLM baselines. Notably, multi-agent debate enables relatively small LLMs (7-9B) to achieve accuracies comparable to that of a much larger model (27B parameters).

The emergence of pre-trained AI systems with powerful capabilities across a diverse and ever-increasing set of complex domains has raised a critical challenge for AI safety as tasks can become too complicated for humans to judge directly. Irving et al. [2018] proposed a debate method in this direction with the goal of pitting the power of such AI models against each other until the problem of identifying (mis)-alignment is broken down into a manageable subtask. While the promise of this approach is clear, the original framework was based on the assumption that the honest strategy is able to simulate deterministic AI systems for an exponential number of steps, limiting its applicability. In this paper, we show how to address these challenges by designing a new set of debate protocols where the honest strategy can always succeed using a simulation of a polynomial number of steps, whilst being able to verify the alignment of stochastic AI systems, even when the dishonest strategy is allowed to use exponentially many simulation steps.

We propose Process-Aware Policy Optimization (PAPO), a method that integrates process-level evaluation into Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) through decoupled advantage normalization, to address two limitations of existing reward designs. Outcome reward models (ORM) evaluate only final-answer correctness, treating all correct responses identically regardless of reasoning quality, and gradually lose the advantage signal as groups become uniformly correct. Process reward models (PRM) offer richer supervision, but directly using PRM scores causes reward hacking, where models exploit verbosity to inflate scores while accuracy collapses. PAPO resolves both by composing the advantage from an outcome component Aout, derived from ORM and normalized over all responses, and a process component Aproc, derived from a rubric-based PRM and normalized exclusively among correct responses. This decoupled design ensures that Aout anchors training on correctness while Aproc differentiates reasoning quality without distorting the outcome signal. Experiments across multiple model scales and six benchmarks demonstrate that PAPO consistently outperforms ORM, reaching 51.3% vs.\ 46.3% on OlympiadBench while continuing to improve as ORM plateaus and declines.

Newspaper reports provide a rich source of information on the unfolding of public debate on specific policy fields that can serve as basis for inquiry in political science. Such debates are often triggered by critical events, which attract public attention and incite the reactions of political actors: crisis sparks the debate. However, due to the challenges of reliable annotation and modeling, few large-scale datasets with high-quality annotation are available. This paper introduces DebateNet2.0, which traces the political discourse on the European refugee crisis in the German quality newspaper taz during the year 2015. The core units of our annotation are political claims (requests for specific actions to be taken within the policy field) and the actors who make them (politicians, parties, etc.). The contribution of this paper is twofold. First, we document and release DebateNet2.0 along with its companion R package, mardyR, guiding the reader through the practical and conceptual issues related to the annotation of policy debates in newspapers. Second, we outline and apply a Discourse Network Analysis (DNA) to DebateNet2.0, comparing two crucial moments of the policy debate on the 'refugee crisis': the migration flux through the Mediterranean in April/May and the one along the Balkan route in September/October. Besides the released resources and the case-study, our contribution is also methodological: we talk the reader through the steps from a newspaper article to a discourse network, demonstrating that there is not just one discourse network for the German migration debate, but multiple ones, depending on the topic of interest (political actors, policy fields, time spans).

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for tasks that require complex reasoning. Most benchmarks focus on final outcomes but overlook the intermediate reasoning steps - such as planning, revision, and decision making under resource constraints. We argue that measuring these internal processes is essential for understanding model behavior and improving reliability. We propose using strategic games as a natural evaluation environment: closed, rule-based systems with clear states, limited resources, and automatic feedback. We introduce a framework that evaluates LLMs along three core dimensions: planning, revision, and resource-constrained decision making. To operationalize this, we define metrics beyond win rate, including overcorrection risk rate, correction success rate, improvement slope, and over-budget ratio. In 4320 adversarial rounds across 12 leading models, ChatGPT-o3-mini achieves the top composite score, with a win rate of 74.7 percent, a correction success rate of 78.6 percent, and an improvement slope of 0.041. By contrast, Qwen-Plus, despite an overcorrection risk rate of 81.6 percent, wins only 25.6 percent of its matches - primarily due to excessive resource use. We also observe a negative correlation between overcorrection risk rate and correction success rate (Pearson r = -0.51, p = 0.093), suggesting that more frequent edits do not always improve outcomes. Our findings highlight the value of assessing not only what LLMs decide but how they arrive at those decisions

In this study, we investigate the capabilities and inherent biases of advanced large language models (LLMs) such as GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 in the context of debate evaluation. We discover that LLM's performance exceeds humans and surpasses the performance of state-of-the-art methods fine-tuned on extensive datasets in debate evaluation. We additionally explore and analyze biases present in LLMs, including positional bias, lexical bias, order bias, which may affect their evaluative judgments. Our findings reveal a consistent bias in both GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 towards the second candidate response presented, attributed to prompt design. We also uncover lexical biases in both GPT-3.5 and GPT-4, especially when label sets carry connotations such as numerical or sequential, highlighting the critical need for careful label verbalizer selection in prompt design. Additionally, our analysis indicates a tendency of both models to favor the debate's concluding side as the winner, suggesting an end-of-discussion bias.

Large language models (LLMs), while promising, face criticisms for biases, hallucinations, and a lack of reasoning capability. This paper introduces SocraSynth, a multi-LLM agent reasoning platform developed to mitigate these issues. SocraSynth utilizes conditional statistics and systematic context enhancement through continuous arguments, alongside adjustable debate contentiousness levels. The platform typically involves a human moderator and two LLM agents representing opposing viewpoints on a given subject. SocraSynth operates in two main phases: knowledge generation and reasoning evaluation. In the knowledge generation phase, the moderator defines the debate topic and contentiousness level, prompting the agents to formulate supporting arguments for their respective stances. The reasoning evaluation phase then employs Socratic reasoning and formal logic principles to appraise the quality of the arguments presented. The dialogue concludes with the moderator adjusting the contentiousness from confrontational to collaborative, gathering final, conciliatory remarks to aid in human reasoning and decision-making. Through case studies in three distinct application domains, this paper showcases SocraSynth's effectiveness in fostering rigorous research, dynamic reasoning, comprehensive assessment, and enhanced collaboration. This underscores the value of multi-agent interactions in leveraging LLMs for advanced knowledge extraction and decision-making support.

With the exponential growth of research facilitated by modern technology and improved accessibility, scientific discoveries have become increasingly fragmented within and across fields. This makes it challenging to assess the significance, novelty, incremental findings, and equivalent ideas between related works, particularly those from different research communities. Large language models (LLMs) have recently demonstrated strong quantitative and qualitative reasoning abilities, and multi-agent LLM debates have shown promise in handling complex reasoning tasks by exploring diverse perspectives and reasoning paths. Inspired by this, we introduce Tree-of-Debate (ToD), a framework which converts scientific papers into LLM personas that debate their respective novelties. To emphasize structured, critical reasoning rather than focusing solely on outcomes, ToD dynamically constructs a debate tree, enabling fine-grained analysis of independent novelty arguments within scholarly articles. Through experiments on scientific literature across various domains, evaluated by expert researchers, we demonstrate that ToD generates informative arguments, effectively contrasts papers, and supports researchers in their literature review.

The rise of large language models (LLMs) has enabled us to seek answers to inherently debatable questions on LLM chatbots, necessitating a reliable way to evaluate their ability. However, traditional QA benchmarks assume fixed answers are inadequate for this purpose. To address this, we introduce DebateQA, a dataset of 2,941 debatable questions, each accompanied by multiple human-annotated partial answers that capture a variety of perspectives. We develop two metrics: Perspective Diversity, which evaluates the comprehensiveness of perspectives, and Dispute Awareness, which assesses if the LLM acknowledges the question's debatable nature. Experiments demonstrate that both metrics align with human preferences and are stable across different underlying models. Using DebateQA with two metrics, we assess 12 popular LLMs and retrieval-augmented generation methods. Our findings reveal that while LLMs generally excel at recognizing debatable issues, their ability to provide comprehensive answers encompassing diverse perspectives varies considerably.

With the recent advances of large language models (LLMs), it is no longer infeasible to build an automated debate system that helps people to synthesise persuasive arguments. Previous work attempted this task by integrating multiple components. In our work, we introduce an argument mining dataset that captures the end-to-end process of preparing an argumentative essay for a debate, which covers the tasks of claim and evidence identification (Task 1 ED), evidence convincingness ranking (Task 2 ECR), argumentative essay summarisation and human preference ranking (Task 3 ASR) and metric learning for automated evaluation of resulting essays, based on human feedback along argument quality dimensions (Task 4 SQE). Our dataset contains 14k examples of claims that are fully annotated with the various properties supporting the aforementioned tasks. We evaluate multiple generative baselines for each of these tasks, including representative LLMs. We find, that while they show promising results on individual tasks in our benchmark, their end-to-end performance on all four tasks in succession deteriorates significantly, both in automated measures as well as in human-centred evaluation. This challenge presented by our proposed dataset motivates future research on end-to-end argument mining and summarisation. The repository of this project is available at https://github.com/HarrywillDr/ArgSum-Datatset

As an agent-level reasoning and coordination paradigm, Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) orchestrates multiple agents through structured debate to improve answer quality and support complex reasoning. However, existing research on MAD suffers from two fundamental limitations: evaluations are conducted under fragmented and inconsistent settings, hindering fair comparison, and are largely restricted to single-modality scenarios that rely on textual inputs only. To address these gaps, we introduce M3MAD-Bench, a unified and extensible benchmark for evaluating MAD methods across Multi-domain tasks, Multi-modal inputs, and Multi-dimensional metrics. M3MAD-Bench establishes standardized protocols over five core task domains: Knowledge, Mathematics, Medicine, Natural Sciences, and Complex Reasoning, and systematically covers both pure text and vision-language datasets, enabling controlled cross-modality comparison. We evaluate MAD methods on nine base models spanning different architectures, scales, and modality capabilities. Beyond accuracy, M3MAD-Bench incorporates efficiency-oriented metrics such as token consumption and inference time, providing a holistic view of performance--cost trade-offs. Extensive experiments yield systematic insights into the effectiveness, robustness, and efficiency of MAD across text-only and multimodal scenarios. We believe M3MAD-Bench offers a reliable foundation for future research on standardized MAD evaluation. The code is available at http://github.com/liaolea/M3MAD-Bench.

Currently, process reward models (PRMs) have exhibited remarkable potential for test-time scaling. Since large language models (LLMs) regularly generate flawed intermediate reasoning steps when tackling a broad spectrum of reasoning and decision-making tasks, PRMs are required to possess capabilities for detecting process-level errors in real-world scenarios. However, existing benchmarks primarily focus on mathematical reasoning, thereby failing to comprehensively evaluate the error detection ability of PRMs across diverse reasoning scenarios. To mitigate this gap, we introduce GR-Ben, a process-level benchmark specifically designed for assessing PRM's performance across two primary reasoning domains (science and logic) and nine subdomains. We conduct extensive experiments on a diverse set of 22 models, encompassing both PRMs and LLMs, and derive two key findings: (1) In domains beyond mathematical reasoning, the error-detection ability of existing PRMs and LLMs is found to be markedly weaker by comparison.(2) In general, PRMs are less adept at identifying knowledge-based errors, whereas LLMs exhibit poorer performance in detecting computational errors. We hope GR-Ben can foster future researches on PRMs for general domains, thereby enhancing the reasoning capabilities of LLMs.

Although artificial intelligence (AI) has become deeply integrated into various stages of the research workflow and achieved remarkable advancements, academic rebuttal remains a significant and underexplored challenge. This is because rebuttal is a complex process of strategic communication under severe information asymmetry rather than a simple technical debate. Consequently, current approaches struggle as they largely imitate surface-level linguistics, missing the essential element of perspective-taking required for effective persuasion. In this paper, we introduce RebuttalAgent, the first framework to ground academic rebuttal in Theory of Mind (ToM), operationalized through a ToM-Strategy-Response (TSR) pipeline that models reviewer mental state, formulates persuasion strategy, and generates strategy-grounded response. To train our agent, we construct RebuttalBench, a large-scale dataset synthesized via a novel critique-and-refine approach. Our training process consists of two stages, beginning with a supervised fine-tuning phase to equip the agent with ToM-based analysis and strategic planning capabilities, followed by a reinforcement learning phase leveraging the self-reward mechanism for scalable self-improvement. For reliable and efficient automated evaluation, we further develop Rebuttal-RM, a specialized evaluator trained on over 100K samples of multi-source rebuttal data, which achieves scoring consistency with human preferences surpassing powerful judge GPT-4.1. Extensive experiments show RebuttalAgent significantly outperforms the base model by an average of 18.3% on automated metrics, while also outperforming advanced proprietary models across both automated and human evaluations. Disclaimer: the generated rebuttal content is for reference only to inspire authors and assist in drafting. It is not intended to replace the author's own critical analysis and response.

Process Reward Models (PRMs) have emerged as a promising approach to enhance the reasoning quality of Large Language Models (LLMs) by assigning fine-grained scores to intermediate reasoning steps within a solution trajectory. However, existing PRMs predominantly adopt a unidirectional left-to-right (L2R) evaluation paradigm, which limits their ability to leverage global context, making it challenging to verify the consistency of earlier steps based on later ones. In light of these challenges, we propose a novel bidirectional evaluation paradigm, named Bidirectional Process Reward Model (BiPRM). BiPRM seamlessly incorporates a parallel right-to-left (R2L) evaluation stream alongside the conventional L2R flow, enabling later reasoning steps to help assess earlier ones in real time. Notably, the built-in R2L evaluation is implemented solely through prompt modifications that reverse the original reasoning trajectory, without any additional parameters or inference latency introduced. This ensures BiPRM remains both efficient and broadly compatible with existing PRM studies. We conduct extensive experiments on two mathematical reasoning benchmarks using samples generated by three different policy models. Our method, BiPRM, is evaluated across three backbones and three distinct PRM objectives. Across all settings, BiPRM consistently outperforms unidirectional baselines, achieving up to a 31.9% improvement in stepwise reward evaluation. Generally, our results highlight BiPRM's effectiveness, robustness, and general applicability, offering a promising new direction for process-based reward modeling.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown impressive performance in various reasoning benchmarks with the emergence of Chain-of-Thought (CoT) and its derivative methods, particularly in tasks involving multi-choice questions (MCQs). However, current works all process data uniformly without considering the problem-solving difficulty, which means an excessive focus on simple questions while insufficient to intricate ones. To address this challenge, we inspired by humans using heuristic strategies to categorize tasks and handle them individually, propose to apply the Divide and Conquer to LLMs reasoning. First, we divide questions into different subsets based on the statistical confidence score (CS), then fix nearly resolved sets and conquer demanding nuanced process ones with elaborately designed methods, including Prior Knowledge based Reasoning (PKR) and Filter Choices based Reasoning (FCR), as well as their integration variants. Our experiments demonstrate that this proposed strategy significantly boosts the models' reasoning abilities across nine datasets involving arithmetic, commonsense, and logic tasks. For instance, compared to baseline, we make a striking improvement on low confidence subsets of 8.72\% for AQuA, 15.07\% for ARC Challenge and 7.71\% for RiddleSense. In addition, through extensive analysis on length of rationale and number of options, we verify that longer reasoning paths in PKR could prevent models from referring infer-harmful shortcuts, and also find that removing irrelevant choices in FCR would substantially avoid models' confusion. The code is at https://github.com/AiMijie/Divide-and-Conquer

We introduce Debate Speech Evaluation as a novel and challenging benchmark for assessing LLM judges. Evaluating debate speeches requires a deep understanding of the speech at multiple levels, including argument strength and relevance, the coherence and organization of the speech, the appropriateness of its style and tone, and so on. This task involves a unique set of cognitive abilities that have previously received limited attention in systematic LLM benchmarking. To explore such skills, we leverage a dataset of over 600 meticulously annotated debate speeches and present the first in-depth analysis of how state-of-the-art LLMs compare to human judges on this task. Our findings reveal a nuanced picture: while larger models can approximate individual human judgments in some respects, they differ substantially in their overall judgment behavior. We also investigate the ability of frontier LLMs to generate persuasive, opinionated speeches, showing that models may perform at a human level on this task.

Large language models (LLMs) excel in natural language generation but often confidently produce incorrect responses, especially in tasks like mathematical reasoning. Chain-of-thought prompting, self-verification, and multi-agent debate are among the strategies proposed to improve the reasoning and factual accuracy of LLMs. Building on Du et al.'s multi-agent debate framework, we find that multi-agent debate helps at any model scale, and that diversity of thought elicits stronger reasoning in debating LLMs. Across various model sizes, performance on mathematical reasoning tasks benefits most when diverse trained models are used. Remarkably, after 4 rounds of debate, a diverse set of medium-capacity models (Gemini-Pro, Mixtral 7BX8, and PaLM 2-M) outperforms GPT-4 on the GSM-8K benchmark, scoring 91% accuracy. By comparison, when 3 instances of Gemini-Pro are used, performance only reaches 82%. Finally, this diverse set of medium-capacity models sets a new state-of-the-art performance on the ASDiv benchmark (94%). These results underscore the idea that the future of AI is agentic, with diverse cooperating agents yielding emergent capabilities beyond even the most powerful individual models.

Existing benchmarks for LLM agents' social behavior typically focus on a single capability dimension and evaluate only behavioral outcomes, overlooking process signals from reasoning and communication. We present M3-BENCH, a benchmark of 24 mixed-motive games with a process-aware evaluation framework spanning three complementary views: Behavioral Trajectory Analysis (BTA), Reasoning Process Analysis (RPA), and Communication Content Analysis (CCA). Evaluating 11 frontier LLMs and a human baseline, M3-BENCH reveals substantial differences in social competence that outcome-only evaluation misses. In particular, we identify an "overthink-undercommunicate" pattern: reasoning models achieve strong internal deliberation scores but often fail to translate them into effective social communication. Although top models can surpass humans on task outcomes, humans exhibit markedly higher cross-view consistency, suggesting that current LLM agents still lack the behavioral coherence characteristic of human social competence. Our analysis further shows that the three-view decomposition surfaces safety-relevant risks, such as cooperative behavior paired with latent opportunistic reasoning, that remain hidden under outcome-only metrics.

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has emerged to be a predominant paradigm for mathematical reasoning tasks, offering stable improvements in reasoning ability. However, Outcome Reward Models (ORMs) in RLVR are too coarse-grained to distinguish flawed reasoning within correct answers or valid reasoning within incorrect answers. This lack of granularity introduces noisy and misleading gradients significantly and hinders further progress in reasoning process quality. While Process Reward Models (PRMs) offer fine-grained guidance for intermediate steps, they frequently suffer from inaccuracies and are susceptible to reward hacking. To resolve this dilemma, we introduce PRocess cOnsistency Filter (PROF), an effective data process curation method that harmonizes noisy, fine-grained process rewards with accurate, coarse-grained outcome rewards. Rather than naively blending PRM and ORM in the objective function (arXiv:archive/2506.18896), PROF leverages their complementary strengths through consistency-driven sample selection. Our approach retains correct responses with higher averaged process values and incorrect responses with lower averaged process values, while maintaining positive/negative training sample balance. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our method not only consistently improves the final accuracy over 4% compared to the blending approaches, but also strengthens the quality of intermediate reasoning steps. Codes and training recipes are available at https://github.com/Chenluye99/PROF.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly relied upon for solving complex reasoning tasks in domains such as mathematics, logic, and multi-step question answering. A growing line of work seeks to improve reasoning quality by scaling inference time compute particularly through Process Reward Models (PRMs), used to reward the reasoning at intermediate steps. While effective, these methods introduce substantial computational overhead, especially when generating large numbers of solutions in parallel. In this paper, we investigate whether PRMs can be used mid-generation to provide early signals that enable the rejection of suboptimal candidates before full generation of step is complete. We introduce the hypothesis that PRMs are also Partial Reward Models, meaning that the scores they assign to partially completed reasoning step are predictive of final output quality. This allows for principled early rejection based on intermediate token-level signals. We support this hypothesis both theoretically, by proving that the risk of discarding optimal beams decreases exponentially with generation length and empirically, by demonstrating a strong correlation between partial and final rewards across multiple reward models. On math reasoning benchmarks, our method achieves up to 1.4times-9times reduction in inference FLOPs without degrading final performance. These results suggest that early rejection is a powerful mechanism for improving the compute-efficiency of reasoning in LLMs.

Civil litigation is inherently a life-cycle process: what a lawyer drafts on day one constrains what unfolds at trial months later. Yet existing legal benchmarks evaluate isolated subtasks, and prior legal-agent simulators reinitialize each scenario from shared ground truth, leaving cross-stage causal dependencies unmodeled. We present LegalWorld, a life-cycle interactive environment that models Chinese civil litigation as a causally connected state chain of five stages (seven sub-scenarios), grounded in 75,309 paired Chinese civil judgments. We pair it with reusable infrastructure (local memory, global case memory, a Skill/Tool library) that keeps each dispute consistent across its full life cycle. Building on this environment, we construct LongJud-Bench to evaluate agent capability across all five connected stages. 18,992 ratings from 217 legal-background evaluators confirm that LegalWorld trajectories are procedurally faithful and role-consistent; and a capability-level cross-model evaluation reveals sharp divergences that aggregate scores cannot expose, with no single backbone leading across consultation, drafting, and courtroom advocacy. Detailed resources will be released publicly.

Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly rely on external tools such as search engines to solve complex agentic tasks that require reasoning and external knowledge retrieval. Recently, reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has demonstrated its effectiveness in advancing capabilities of LLMs by rewarding the final answers via outcome rewards. While straightforward to supervise, outcome rewards only provide sparse signals and delayed feedback, which limits their effectiveness on long trajectories. Process rewards address this by evaluating intermediate steps, providing fine-grained supervision and encouraging grounded problem solving. However, it is notoriously hard to annotate step-wise labels, especially in non-verifiable process without "golden" answers. Furthermore, step-wise judgment requires the balance between local quality with contribution to the final outcome, as optimizing towards higher process reward may not always align with better final outcomes. To address the above challenges, we introduce Principle Process Reward (PPR), an RL approach that unifies principled step-level assessment and outcome verification. We train a principle-based reward model to improve the transparency and reliability of process evaluation, and further introduce a Reward Normalization (ReNorm) strategy to calibrate outcome and process rewards. Experiment results show that PPR achieves state-of-the-art performance across a wide range of benchmarks, demonstrating its impressive robustness and generalization. Our code and model collection is available in this link.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly applied for Process Modeling (PMo) tasks such as Process Model Generation (PMG). To support these tasks, researchers have introduced a variety of Process Model Representations (PMRs) that serve as model abstractions or generation targets. However, these PMRs differ widely in structure, complexity, and usability, and have never been systematically compared. Moreover, recent PMG approaches rely on distinct evaluation strategies and generation techniques, making comparison difficult. This paper presents the first empirical study that evaluates multiple PMRs in the context of PMo with LLMs. We introduce the PMo Dataset, a new dataset containing 55 process descriptions paired with models in nine different PMRs. We evaluate PMRs along two dimensions: suitability for LLM-based PMo and performance on PMG. Mermaid achieves the highest overall score across six PMo criteria, whereas BPMN text delivers the best PMG results in terms of process element similarity.

We introduce DebateBench, a novel dataset consisting of an extensive collection of transcripts and metadata from some of the world's most prestigious competitive debates. The dataset consists of British Parliamentary debates from prestigious debating tournaments on diverse topics, annotated with detailed speech-level scores and house rankings sourced from official adjudication data. We curate 256 speeches across 32 debates with each debate being over 1 hour long with each input being an average of 32,000 tokens. Designed to capture long-context, large-scale reasoning tasks, DebateBench provides a benchmark for evaluating modern large language models (LLMs) on their ability to engage in argumentation, deliberation, and alignment with human experts. To do well on DebateBench, the LLMs must perform in-context learning to understand the rules and evaluation criteria of the debates, then analyze 8 seven minute long speeches and reason about the arguments presented by all speakers to give the final results. Our preliminary evaluation using GPT o1, GPT-4o, and Claude Haiku, shows that LLMs struggle to perform well on DebateBench, highlighting the need to develop more sophisticated techniques for improving their performance.

Process-level Reward Models (PRMs) are crucial for complex reasoning and decision-making tasks, where each intermediate step plays an important role in the reasoning process. Since language models are prone to various types of errors during the reasoning process, PRMs are required to possess nuanced capabilities for detecting various implicit error types in real-world scenarios. However, current benchmarks primarily focus on step correctness, failing to evaluate PRMs' performance systematically. To address this gap, we introduce PRMBench, a process-level benchmark specifically designed to assess the fine-grained error detection capabilities of PRMs. PRMBench comprises 6,216 carefully designed problems and 83,456 step-level labels, evaluating models across multiple dimensions, including simplicity, soundness, and sensitivity. In our experiments on 15 models, spanning both open-source PRMs and closed-source large language models prompted as critic models, we uncover significant weaknesses in current PRMs. These findings underscore the challenges inherent in process-level evaluation and highlight key directions for future research. We hope PRMBench can be a robust bench for advancing research on PRM evaluation and development.

The remarkable performance of models like the OpenAI o1 can be attributed to their ability to emulate human-like long-time thinking during inference. These models employ extended chain-of-thought (CoT) processes, exploring multiple strategies to enhance problem-solving capabilities. However, a critical question remains: How to intelligently and efficiently scale computational resources during testing. This paper presents the first comprehensive study on the prevalent issue of overthinking in these models, where excessive computational resources are allocated for simple problems with minimal benefit. We introduce novel efficiency metrics from both outcome and process perspectives to evaluate the rational use of computational resources by o1-like models. Using a self-training paradigm, we propose strategies to mitigate overthinking, streamlining reasoning processes without compromising accuracy. Experimental results show that our approach successfully reduces computational overhead while preserving model performance across a range of testsets with varying difficulty levels, such as GSM8K, MATH500, GPQA, and AIME.

Recent work has shown that asking language models to generate reasoning steps improves performance on many reasoning tasks. When moving beyond prompting, this raises the question of how we should supervise such models: outcome-based approaches which supervise the final result, or process-based approaches which supervise the reasoning process itself? Differences between these approaches might naturally be expected not just in final-answer errors but also in reasoning errors, which can be difficult to detect and are problematic in many real-world domains such as education. We run the first comprehensive comparison between process- and outcome-based approaches trained on a natural language task, GSM8K. We find that pure outcome-based supervision produces similar final-answer error rates with less label supervision. However, for correct reasoning steps we find it necessary to use process-based supervision or supervision from learned reward models that emulate process-based feedback. In total, we improve the previous best results from 16.8% to 12.7% final-answer error and 14.0% to 3.4% reasoning error among final-answer-correct solutions.

Multi-Agent Debate has emerged as a promising framework for improving the reasoning quality of large language models through iterative inter-agent communication. However, broadcasting all agent messages at every round introduces noise and redundancy that can degrade debate quality and waste computational resources. Current approaches rely on uncertainty estimation to filter low-confidence responses before broadcasting, but this approach is unreliable due to miscalibrated confidence scores and sensitivity to threshold selection. To address this, we propose Diversity-Aware Retention (DAR), a lightweight debate framework that, at each debate round, selects the subset of agent responses that maximally disagree with each other and with the majority vote before broadcasting. Through an explicit index-based retention mechanism, DAR preserves the original messages without modification, ensuring that retained disagreements remain authentic. Experiments on diverse reasoning and question answering benchmarks demonstrate that our selective message propagation consistently improves debate performance, particularly as the number of agents scales, where noise accumulation is most severe. Our results highlight that what agents hear is as important as what agents say in multi-agent reasoning systems. Code is publicly available at https://github.com/DA2I2-SLM/DAR.

Multi-agent debate (MAD) has gained significant attention as a promising line of research to improve the factual accuracy and reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs). Despite its conceptual appeal, current MAD research suffers from critical limitations in evaluation practices, including limited benchmark coverage, weak baseline comparisons, and inconsistent setups. This paper presents a systematic evaluation of 5 representative MAD methods across 9 benchmarks using 4 foundational models. Surprisingly, our findings reveal that MAD often fail to outperform simple single-agent baselines such as Chain-of-Thought and Self-Consistency, even when consuming significantly more inference-time computation. To advance MAD research, we further explore the role of model heterogeneity and find it as a universal antidote to consistently improve current MAD frameworks. Based on our findings, we argue that the field must stop overvaluing MAD in its current form; for true advancement, we must critically rethink evaluation paradigms and actively embrace model heterogeneity as a core design principle.

Test-time scaling has enabled Large Language Models (LLMs) to tackle complex reasoning, yet the limitations of current Chain-of-Thought (CoT) evaluation obscures whether performance gains stem from genuine reasoning or mere verbosity. To address this, (1) we propose a novel neuro-symbolic framework for the non-intrusive, comprehensive process-centric evaluation of reasoning. (2) Through this lens, we identify four distinct behavioral prototypes and diagnose the failure modes. (3) We examine the impact of inference mode, training strategy, and model scale. Our analysis reveals that extended token generation is not a prerequisite for deep reasoning. Furthermore, we reveal critical constraints: mixing long and short CoT data in training risks in premature saturation and collapse, while distillation into smaller models captures behavioral length but fails to replicate logical efficacy due to intrinsic capacity limits.

Process supervision enhances the performance of large language models in reasoning tasks by providing feedback at each step of chain-of-thought reasoning. However, due to the lack of effective process supervision methods, even advanced large language models are prone to logical errors and redundant reasoning. We claim that the effectiveness of process supervision significantly depends on both the accuracy and the length of reasoning chains. Moreover, we identify that these factors exhibit a nonlinear relationship with the overall reward score of the reasoning process. Inspired by these insights, we propose a novel process supervision paradigm, PSPO*, which systematically outlines the workflow from reward model training to policy optimization, and highlights the importance of nonlinear rewards in process supervision. Based on PSPO*, we develop the PSPO-WRS, which considers the number of reasoning steps in determining reward scores and utilizes an adjusted Weibull distribution for nonlinear reward shaping. Experimental results on six mathematical reasoning datasets demonstrate that PSPO-WRS consistently outperforms current mainstream models.

We introduce OpenDebateEvidence, a comprehensive dataset for argument mining and summarization sourced from the American Competitive Debate community. This dataset includes over 3.5 million documents with rich metadata, making it one of the most extensive collections of debate evidence. OpenDebateEvidence captures the complexity of arguments in high school and college debates, providing valuable resources for training and evaluation. Our extensive experiments demonstrate the efficacy of fine-tuning state-of-the-art large language models for argumentative abstractive summarization across various methods, models, and datasets. By providing this comprehensive resource, we aim to advance computational argumentation and support practical applications for debaters, educators, and researchers. OpenDebateEvidence is publicly available to support further research and innovation in computational argumentation. Access it here: https://huggingface.co/datasets/Yusuf5/OpenCaselist

Large language models (LLMs) are becoming deeply embedded in human communication and decision-making, yet they inherit the ambiguity, bias, and lack of direct access to truth inherent in language itself. While their outputs are fluent, emotionally resonant, and coherent, they are generated through statistical prediction rather than grounded reasoning. This creates the risk of hallucination, responses that sound convincing but lack factual validity. Building on Geoffrey Hinton's observation that AI mirrors human intuition rather than reasoning, this paper argues that LLMs operationalize System 1 cognition at scale: fast, associative, and persuasive, but without reflection or falsification. To address this, we introduce the Rose-Frame, a three-dimensional framework for diagnosing cognitive and epistemic drift in human-AI interaction. The three axes are: (i) Map vs. Territory, which distinguishes representations of reality (epistemology) from reality itself (ontology); (ii) Intuition vs. Reason, drawing on dual-process theory to separate fast, emotional judgments from slow, reflective thinking; and (iii) Conflict vs. Confirmation, which examines whether ideas are critically tested through disagreement or simply reinforced through mutual validation. Each dimension captures a distinct failure mode, and their combination amplifies misalignment. Rose-Frame does not attempt to fix LLMs with more data or rules. Instead, it offers a reflective tool that makes both the model's limitations and the user's assumptions visible, enabling more transparent and critically aware AI deployment. It reframes alignment as cognitive governance: intuition, whether human or artificial, must remain governed by human reason. Only by embedding reflective, falsifiable oversight can we align machine fluency with human understanding.

As LLMs increasingly mediate the political information citizens rely on, there is still no standardized way to assess whether they do so responsibly. We introduce Polistemics, a theory-grounded benchmark for evaluating LLMs as mediators of political information in elections. Prior work has treated this task as reproduction rather than mediation, leaving its epistemic dimensions and interaction with imperfect information unaddressed. We ground the evaluation in Epistemic Modesty, a normative standard derived from citizens' epistemic agency, and test it across controlled settings that vary informational properties such as clarity, noise, and consistency. Applying the benchmark to three state-of-the-art LLMs on the 2025 German and Dutch elections, we find that high aggregate scores mask systematic failures. Models mediate reliably under clear evidence but break down under absent, vague, or contradictory information, while flattening the intensity of political language. These failures are likely driven by party priors, influenced by party labels and output language. Reliable mediation appears achievable, but no model delivers it consistently.

Test-time compute has led to remarkable success in the large language model (LLM) community, particularly for complex tasks, where longer chains of thought (CoTs) are generated to enhance reasoning capabilities. However, growing evidence reveals that such reasoning models often produce CoTs plagued by excessive redundancy, including unnecessary verification steps and repetitive reasoning shifts. The root cause lies in post-training of them that overly rely on outcome reward paradigms, as the data of process reward paradigms, which regulate intermediate reasoning steps, is difficult to construct at scale. To address this, we propose PI, a novel framework for Test-time Prompt Intervention. PI provides an interface to dynamically guide and regulate reasoning paths during inference through timely (When module) and proper (How module) interventions and post-intervention sampling (Which module). This allows human problem-solving expertise and cognitive science principles to be seamlessly integrated into LLMs' reasoning processes, enhancing controllability and interpretability. Extensive experiments across multiple models and datasets demonstrate that PI significantly shortens CoTs while reducing hallucination, yielding more concise and reliable reasoning.

Large language models (LLMs) inevitably make mistakes when performing step-by-step mathematical reasoning. Process Reward Models (PRMs) have emerged as a promising solution by evaluating each reasoning step. However, existing PRMs typically output evaluation scores directly, limiting both learning efficiency and evaluation accuracy, which is further exacerbated by the scarcity of annotated data. To address these issues, we propose Reasoning-Driven Process Reward Modeling (R-PRM). First, we leverage stronger LLMs to generate seed data from limited annotations, effectively bootstrapping our model's reasoning capabilities and enabling comprehensive step-by-step evaluation. Second, we further enhance performance through preference optimization, without requiring additional annotated data. Third, we introduce inference-time scaling to fully harness the model's reasoning potential. Extensive experiments demonstrate R-PRM's effectiveness: on ProcessBench and PRMBench, it surpasses strong baselines by 11.9 and 8.5 points in F1 scores, respectively. When applied to guide mathematical reasoning, R-PRM achieves consistent accuracy improvements of over 8.5 points across six challenging datasets. Further analysis reveals that R-PRM exhibits more comprehensive evaluation and stronger generalization capabilities, thereby highlighting its significant potential.

Large reasoning models (LRMs) have recently shown promise in solving complex math problems when optimized with Reinforcement Learning (RL). But conventional approaches rely on outcome-only rewards that provide sparse feedback, resulting in inefficient optimization process. In this work, we investigate the function of process reward models (PRMs) to accelerate the RL training for LRMs. We propose a novel intrinsic signal-driven generative process evaluation mechanism operating at the thought level to address major bottlenecks in RL-based training. Specifically, instead of requiring PRMs to know how to solve problems, our method uses intrinsic signals in solutions to judge stepwise correctness and aggregate contiguous correct/incorrect steps into coherent 'thought' units. This structured, thought-level rewards enable more reliable credit assignment by reducing ambiguity in step segmentation and alleviating reward hacking. We further introduce a capability-adaptive reward mechanism that dynamically balances exploration and exploitation based on the LRM's current proficiency, guiding learning without stifling creative trial-and-error. These innovations are integrated into a new off-policy RL algorithm, TP-GRPO, which extends grouped proximal optimization with process-based rewards and improves training efficiency. Experiments on 1.5B and 7B parameter LRMs demonstrate that our method achieves higher problem-solving accuracy with significantly fewer training samples than outcome-only reward baselines. The results validate that well-structured process rewards can substantially accelerate LRM optimization in math reasoning tasks. Code is available at https://github.com/cs-holder/tp_grpo.

Large language models have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in complex mathematical reasoning tasks, but they inevitably generate errors throughout multi-step solutions. Process-level Reward Models (PRMs) have shown great promise by providing supervision and evaluation at each intermediate step, thereby effectively improving the models' reasoning abilities. However, training effective PRMs requires high-quality process reward data, yet existing methods for constructing such data are often labour-intensive or inefficient. In this paper, we propose an uncertainty-driven framework for automated process reward data construction, encompassing both data generation and annotation processes for PRMs. Additionally, we identify the limitations of both majority vote and PRMs, and introduce two generic uncertainty-aware output aggregation methods: Hybrid Majority Reward Vote and Weighted Reward Frequency Vote, which combine the strengths of majority vote with PRMs. Extensive experiments on ProcessBench, MATH, and GSMPlus show the effectiveness and efficiency of the proposed PRM data construction framework, and demonstrate that the two output aggregation methods further improve the mathematical reasoning abilities across diverse PRMs. The code and data will be publicly available at https://github.com/Jiuzhouh/UnPRM.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have the potential to semi-automate some process mining (PM) analyses. While commercial models are already adequate for many analytics tasks, the competitive level of open-source LLMs in PM tasks is unknown. In this paper, we propose PM-LLM-Benchmark, the first comprehensive benchmark for PM focusing on domain knowledge (process-mining-specific and process-specific) and on different implementation strategies. We focus also on the challenges in creating such a benchmark, related to the public availability of the data and on evaluation biases by the LLMs. Overall, we observe that most of the considered LLMs can perform some process mining tasks at a satisfactory level, but tiny models that would run on edge devices are still inadequate. We also conclude that while the proposed benchmark is useful for identifying LLMs that are adequate for process mining tasks, further research is needed to overcome the evaluation biases and perform a more thorough ranking of the competitive LLMs.

Complex problem-solving requires cognitive flexibility--the capacity to entertain multiple perspectives while preserving their distinctiveness. This flexibility replicates the "wisdom of crowds" within a single individual, allowing them to "think with many minds." While mental simulation enables imagined deliberation, cognitive constraints limit its effectiveness. We propose synthetic deliberation, a Large Language Model (LLM)-based method that simulates discourse between agents embodying diverse perspectives, as a solution. Using a custom GPT-based model, we showcase its benefits: concurrent processing of multiple viewpoints without cognitive degradation, parallel exploration of perspectives, and precise control over viewpoint synthesis. By externalizing the deliberative process and distributing cognitive labor between parallel search and integration, synthetic deliberation transcends mental simulation's limitations. This approach shows promise for strategic planning, policymaking, and conflict resolution.

Query-focused summarization (QFS) gives a summary of documents to answer a query. Past QFS work assumes queries have one answer, ignoring debatable ones (Is law school worth it?). We introduce Debatable QFS (DQFS), a task to create summaries that answer debatable queries via documents with opposing perspectives; summaries must comprehensively cover all sources and balance perspectives, favoring no side. These goals elude LLM QFS systems, which: 1) lack structured content plans, failing to guide LLMs to write balanced summaries, and 2) use the same query to retrieve contexts across documents, failing to cover all perspectives specific to each document's content. To overcome this, we design MODS, a multi-LLM framework mirroring human panel discussions. MODS treats documents as individual Speaker LLMs and has a Moderator LLM that picks speakers to respond to tailored queries for planned topics. Speakers use tailored queries to retrieve relevant contexts from their documents and supply perspectives, which are tracked in a rich outline, yielding a content plan to guide the final summary. Experiments on ConflictingQA with controversial web queries and DebateQFS, our new dataset of debate queries from Debatepedia, show MODS beats SOTA by 38-59% in topic paragraph coverage and balance, based on new citation metrics. Users also find MODS's summaries to be readable and more balanced.

The development of autonomous agents for complex, long-horizon tasks is a central goal in AI. However, dominant training paradigms face a critical limitation: reinforcement learning (RL) methods that optimize solely for final task success often reinforce flawed or inefficient reasoning paths, a problem we term inefficient exploration. This leads to agents that are brittle and fail to generalize, as they learn to find solutions without learning how to reason coherently. To address this, we introduce RLVMR, a novel framework that integrates dense, process-level supervision into end-to-end RL by rewarding verifiable, meta-reasoning behaviors. RLVMR equips an agent to explicitly tag its cognitive steps, such as planning, exploration, and reflection, and provides programmatic, rule-based rewards for actions that contribute to effective problem-solving. These process-centric rewards are combined with the final outcome signal and optimized using a critic-free policy gradient method. On the challenging ALFWorld and ScienceWorld benchmarks, RLVMR achieves new state-of-the-art results, with our 7B model reaching an 83.6% success rate on the most difficult unseen task split. Our analysis confirms these gains stem from improved reasoning quality, including significant reductions in redundant actions and enhanced error recovery, leading to more robust, efficient, and interpretable agents.

We argue that enabling human-AI dialogue, purposed to support joint reasoning (i.e., 'inquiry'), is important for ensuring that AI decision making is aligned with human values and preferences. In particular, we point to logic-based models of argumentation and dialogue, and suggest that the traditional focus on persuasion dialogues be replaced by a focus on inquiry dialogues, and the distinct challenges that joint inquiry raises. Given recent dramatic advances in the performance of large language models (LLMs), and the anticipated increase in their use for decision making, we provide a roadmap for research into inquiry dialogues for supporting joint human-LLM reasoning tasks that are ethically salient, and that thereby require that decisions are value aligned.

LLM agents handle user requests on behalf of organizations through tool calls and must follow the company policies stated in their system prompts. Prior work approaches this as a safeguarding problem -- external checks that block non-compliant agent actions. We argue that policy adherence is a broader problem: real workflows unfold across many turns, require explicit user confirmation and prerequisite reads, and hinge on the content of the dialogue rather than on any single argument value. Meeting this bar requires (i) full conversation context, (ii) self-reasoning over the policy and the current dialogue, and (iii) conversation-specific remediation that guides the agent's next turn -- three capabilities that prior safeguard work has often underestimated. We introduce POLICYGUARD, a sub-agent verifier that shares the agent's view of the dialogue, reasons over the policy in context, and provides actionable feedback for the agent's next turn. On tau^2-BENCH airline across three vendors (GPT-5.4, Claude Sonnet 4.6, Gemini 2.5 Pro) with four trials per setting, POLICYGUARD improves PASS4 by +12.0 / +6.0 / +12.0 pp. Per-call analyses show POLICYGUARD achieves higher policy-violation recall while blocking roughly half as often as argument-level guards.

Reinforcement fine-tuning (RFT), a two-stage framework consisting of supervised fine-tuning (SFT) and reinforcement learning (RL) has shown promising results on improving reasoning ability of large language models (LLMs). Yet extending RFT to large video language models (LVLMs) remains challenging. We propose VideoP2R, a novel process-aware video RFT framework that enhances video reasoning by modeling perception and reasoning as distinct processes. In the SFT stage, we develop a three-step pipeline to generate VideoP2R-CoT-162K, a high-quality, process-aware chain-of-thought (CoT) dataset for perception and reasoning. In the RL stage, we introduce a novel process-aware group relative policy optimization (PA-GRPO) algorithm that supplies separate rewards for perception and reasoning. Extensive experiments show that VideoP2R achieves state-of-the-art (SotA) performance on six out of seven video reasoning and understanding benchmarks. Ablation studies further confirm the effectiveness of our process-aware modeling and PA-GRPO and demonstrate that model's perception output is information-sufficient for downstream reasoning.

Whether AI models can introspect is an increasingly important practical question. But there is no consensus on how introspection is to be defined. Beginning from a recently proposed ''lightweight'' definition, we argue instead for a thicker one. According to our proposal, introspection in AI is any process which yields information about internal states through a process more reliable than one with equal or lower computational cost available to a third party. Using experiments where LLMs reason about their internal temperature parameters, we show they can appear to have lightweight introspection while failing to meaningfully introspect per our proposed definition.

Large language models equipped with Web search, information retrieval tools, and other agentic capabilities are beginning to supplant traditional search engines. As users start to rely on LLMs for information on many topics, including controversial and debatable issues, it is important to understand how the stances and opinions expressed in LLM outputs are influenced by the documents they use as their information sources. In this paper, we present MillStone, the first benchmark that aims to systematically measure the effect of external arguments on the stances that LLMs take on controversial issues (not all of them political). We apply MillStone to nine leading LLMs and measure how ``open-minded'' they are to arguments supporting opposite sides of these issues, whether different LLMs agree with each other, which arguments LLMs find most persuasive, and whether these arguments are the same for different LLMs. In general, we find that LLMs are open-minded on most issues. An authoritative source of information can easily sway an LLM's stance, highlighting the importance of source selection and the risk that LLM-based information retrieval and search systems can be manipulated.

In proactive dialogue, the challenge lies not just in generating responses but in steering conversations toward predetermined goals, a task where Large Language Models (LLMs) typically struggle due to their reactive nature. Traditional approaches to enhance dialogue planning in LLMs, ranging from elaborate prompt engineering to the integration of policy networks, either face efficiency issues or deliver suboptimal performance. Inspired by the dualprocess theory in psychology, which identifies two distinct modes of thinking - intuitive (fast) and analytical (slow), we propose the Dual-Process Dialogue Planning (DPDP) framework. DPDP embodies this theory through two complementary planning systems: an instinctive policy model for familiar contexts and a deliberative Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) mechanism for complex, novel scenarios. This dual strategy is further coupled with a novel two-stage training regimen: offline Reinforcement Learning for robust initial policy model formation followed by MCTS-enhanced on-the-fly learning, which ensures a dynamic balance between efficiency and strategic depth. Our empirical evaluations across diverse dialogue tasks affirm DPDP's superiority in achieving both high-quality dialogues and operational efficiency, outpacing existing methods.

While machine learning has advanced through massive parallelization, we identify a critical blind spot: some problems are fundamentally sequential. These "inherently serial" problems-from mathematical reasoning to physical simulations to sequential decision-making-require dependent computational steps that cannot be parallelized. Drawing from complexity theory, we formalize this distinction and demonstrate that current parallel-centric architectures face fundamental limitations on such tasks. We argue that recognizing the serial nature of computation holds profound implications on machine learning, model design, hardware development. As AI tackles increasingly complex reasoning, deliberately scaling serial computation-not just parallel computation-is essential for continued progress.

Complex multi-step reasoning tasks, such as solving mathematical problems or generating code, remain a significant hurdle for even the most advanced large language models (LLMs). Verifying LLM outputs with an Outcome Reward Model (ORM) is a standard inference-time technique aimed at enhancing the reasoning performance of LLMs. However, this still proves insufficient for reasoning tasks with a lengthy or multi-hop reasoning chain, where the intermediate outcomes are neither properly rewarded nor penalized. Process supervision addresses this limitation by assigning intermediate rewards during the reasoning process. To date, the methods used to collect process supervision data have relied on either human annotation or per-step Monte Carlo estimation, both prohibitively expensive to scale, thus hindering the broad application of this technique. In response to this challenge, we propose a novel divide-and-conquer style Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) algorithm named OmegaPRM for the efficient collection of high-quality process supervision data. This algorithm swiftly identifies the first error in the Chain of Thought (CoT) with binary search and balances the positive and negative examples, thereby ensuring both efficiency and quality. As a result, we are able to collect over 1.5 million process supervision annotations to train a Process Reward Model (PRM). Utilizing this fully automated process supervision alongside the weighted self-consistency algorithm, we have enhanced the instruction tuned Gemini Pro model's math reasoning performance, achieving a 69.4\% success rate on the MATH benchmark, a 36\% relative improvement from the 51\% base model performance. Additionally, the entire process operates without any human intervention, making our method both financially and computationally cost-effective compared to existing methods.

Peer review is a cornerstone of scientific publishing, including at premier machine learning conferences such as ICLR. As submission volumes increase, understanding the nature and dynamics of the review process is crucial for improving its efficiency, effectiveness, and the quality of published papers. We present a large-scale analysis of the ICLR 2024 and 2025 peer review processes, focusing on before- and after-rebuttal scores and reviewer-author interactions. We examine review scores, author-reviewer engagement, temporal patterns in review submissions, and co-reviewer influence effects. Combining quantitative analyses with LLM-based categorization of review texts and rebuttal discussions, we identify common strengths and weaknesses for each rating group, as well as trends in rebuttal strategies that are most strongly associated with score changes. Our findings show that initial scores and the ratings of co-reviewers are the strongest predictors of score changes during the rebuttal, pointing to a degree of reviewer influence. Rebuttals play a valuable role in improving outcomes for borderline papers, where thoughtful author responses can meaningfully shift reviewer perspectives. More broadly, our study offers evidence-based insights to improve the peer review process, guiding authors on effective rebuttal strategies and helping the community design fairer and more efficient review processes. Our code and score changes data are available at https://github.com/papercopilot/iclr-insights.

The reasoning abilities of large language models (LLMs) have been substantially improved by reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR). At test time, collaborative reasoning through Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) has emerged as a promising approach for enhancing LLM performance. However, current RLVR methods typically train LLMs to solve problems in isolation, without explicitly preparing them to synthesize and benefit from different rationales that arise during debate. In this work, we propose Self-Debate Reinforcement Learning (SDRL), a training framework that equips a single LLM with strong standalone problem-solving ability and the capability to learn from diverse reasoning trajectories in MAD. Given a prompt, SDRL first samples multiple candidate solutions, then constructs a debate context with diverse reasoning paths and generates second-turn responses conditioned on this context. Finally, SDRL jointly optimizes both the initial and debate-conditioned responses, yielding a model that is effective as both a standalone solver and a debate participant. Experiments across multiple base models and reasoning benchmarks show that SDRL improves overall MAD performance while simultaneously strengthening single model reasoning.

Peer review is a critical component of scientific progress in the fields like AI, but the rapid increase in submission volume has strained the reviewing system, which inevitably leads to reviewer shortages and declines review quality. Besides the growing research popularity, another key factor in this overload is the repeated resubmission of substandard manuscripts, largely due to the lack of effective tools for authors to self-evaluate their work before submission. Large Language Models (LLMs) show great promise in assisting both authors and reviewers, and their performance is fundamentally limited by the quality of the peer review data. However, existing peer review datasets face three major limitations: (1) limited data diversity, (2) inconsistent and low-quality data due to the use of revised rather than initial submissions, and (3) insufficient support for tasks involving rebuttal and reviewer-author interactions. To address these challenges, we introduce the largest consistency-ensured peer review and rebuttal dataset named Re^2, which comprises 19,926 initial submissions, 70,668 review comments, and 53,818 rebuttals from 24 conferences and 21 workshops on OpenReview. Moreover, the rebuttal and discussion stage is framed as a multi-turn conversation paradigm to support both traditional static review tasks and dynamic interactive LLM assistants, providing more practical guidance for authors to refine their manuscripts and helping alleviate the growing review burden. Our data and code are available in https://anonymous.4open.science/r/ReviewBench_anon/.

Clinical dialogue represents a complex duality requiring both the empathetic fluency of natural conversation and the rigorous precision of evidence-based medicine. While Large Language Models possess unprecedented linguistic capabilities, their architectural reliance on reactive and stateless processing often favors probabilistic plausibility over factual veracity. This structural limitation has catalyzed a paradigm shift in medical AI from generative text prediction to agentic autonomy, where the model functions as a central reasoning engine capable of deliberate planning and persistent memory. Moving beyond existing reviews that primarily catalog downstream applications, this survey provides a first-principles analysis of the cognitive architecture underpinning this shift. We introduce a novel taxonomy structured along the orthogonal axes of knowledge source and agency objective to delineate the provenance of clinical knowledge against the system's operational scope. This framework facilitates a systematic analysis of the intrinsic trade-offs between creativity and reliability by categorizing methods into four archetypes: Latent Space Clinicians, Emergent Planners, Grounded Synthesizers, and Verifiable Workflow Automators. For each paradigm, we deconstruct the technical realization across the entire cognitive pipeline, encompassing strategic planning, memory management, action execution, collaboration, and evolution to reveal how distinct architectural choices balance the tension between autonomy and safety.

AI systems can now cheaply generate plausible scientific artifacts such as papers, reviews, and surveys. This creates a risk of epistemic pollution in our scientific systems, where unreliable but plausible-looking artifacts can accumulate faster than the system can filter them out. The problem is structural: the epistemic infrastructure of science was calibrated to a world where producing a plausible artifact required substantial expertise, labor, and time, so generation cost itself served as a rough filter; AI weakens that filter without comparably lowering verification cost. We argue that AI-era science should treat this as an engineering problem: redesigning epistemic infrastructure to rebalance the costs of generation and verification. The current paper-centered system makes verification expensive: papers compress long-context scientific logic into prose, forcing reviewers, human or AI, to reconstruct underlying argument structure before they can evaluate it. As one step in this direction, we propose blueprints as preliminary epistemic infrastructure: structured, decomposed research artifacts that represent claims, evidence, assumptions, and definitions as typed graph components. Blueprints are designed to trade an upfront generation cost for cheaper, more local, more distributed verification downstream. We have instantiated the proposal in a proof-of-concept prototype.

This paper investigates the rational thinking capability of Large Language Models (LLMs) in multi-round argumentative debates by exploring the impact of fallacious arguments on their logical reasoning performance. More specifically, we present Logic Competence Measurement Benchmark (LOGICOM), a diagnostic benchmark to assess the robustness of LLMs against logical fallacies. LOGICOM involves two agents: a persuader and a debater engaging in a multi-round debate on a controversial topic, where the persuader tries to convince the debater of the correctness of its claim. First, LOGICOM assesses the potential of LLMs to change their opinions through reasoning. Then, it evaluates the debater's performance in logical reasoning by contrasting the scenario where the persuader employs logical fallacies against one where logical reasoning is used. We use this benchmark to evaluate the performance of GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 using a dataset containing controversial topics, claims, and reasons supporting them. Our findings indicate that both GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 can adjust their opinion through reasoning. However, when presented with logical fallacies, GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 are erroneously convinced 41% and 69% more often, respectively, compared to when logical reasoning is used. Finally, we introduce a new dataset containing over 5k pairs of logical vs. fallacious arguments. The source code and dataset of this work are made publicly available.

Large language models (LLMs) have exhibited impressive capabilities across a myriad of tasks, yet they occasionally yield undesirable outputs. We posit that these limitations are rooted in the foundational autoregressive architecture of LLMs, which inherently lacks mechanisms for differentiating between desirable and undesirable results. Drawing inspiration from the dual-process theory of human cognition, we introduce LLM2, a novel framework that combines an LLM (System 1) with a process-based verifier (System 2). Within LLM2, the LLM is responsible for generating plausible candidates, while the verifier provides timely process-based feedback to distinguish desirable and undesirable outputs. The verifier is trained with a pairwise comparison loss on synthetic process-supervision data generated through our token quality exploration strategy. Empirical results on mathematical reasoning benchmarks substantiate the efficacy of LLM2, exemplified by an accuracy enhancement from 50.3 to 57.8 (+7.5) for Llama3-1B on GSM8K. Furthermore, when combined with self-consistency, LLM2 achieves additional improvements, boosting major@20 accuracy from 56.2 to 70.2 (+14.0).

We introduce our first reflective generative model MetaStone-S1, which obtains OpenAI o3's performance via the self-supervised process reward model (SPRM). Through sharing the backbone network and using task-specific heads for next token prediction and process scoring respectively, SPRM successfully integrates the policy model and process reward model(PRM) into a unified interface without extra process annotation, reducing over 99% PRM parameters for efficient reasoning. Equipped with SPRM, MetaStone-S1 is naturally suitable for test time scaling (TTS), and we provide three reasoning effort modes (low, medium, and high), based on the controllable thinking length. Moreover, we empirically establish a scaling law that reveals the relationship between total thinking computation and TTS performance. Experiments demonstrate that our MetaStone-S1 achieves comparable performance to OpenAI-o3-mini's series with only 32B parameter size. To support the research community, we have open-sourced MetaStone-S1 at https://github.com/MetaStone-AI/MetaStone-S1.

Test-time compute scaling has emerged as a powerful paradigm for enhancing mathematical reasoning in large language models (LLMs) by allocating additional computational resources during inference. However, current methods employ uniform resource distribution across all reasoning sub-problems, creating fundamental bottlenecks where challenging sub-problems receive insufficient attention while routine operations consume disproportionate resources. This uniform allocation creates performance bottlenecks where additional computational resources yield diminishing returns. Inspired by dual-process theory, we propose SCALE (Selective Resource Allocation), a framework that selectively allocates computational resources based on sub-problem difficulty. SCALE operates through four stages: (1) problem decomposition into sequential reasoning sub-problems, (2) difficulty assessment of each sub-problem to distinguish between routine operations and computationally challenging sub-problems, (3) selective processing mode assignment between System 1 for simple sub-problems and System 2 for complex ones, and (4) sequential execution with context propagation. By concentrating resources on challenging sub-problems while processing routine operations efficiently, SCALE achieves substantial performance improvements with superior resource utilization. Extensive experiments demonstrate that SCALE significantly outperforms uniform scaling baselines, achieving accuracy improvements of up to 13.75 percentage points (57.50% to 71.25% on AIME25) while reducing computational costs by 33%-53%, representing a major advance in test-time scaling that addresses fundamental limitations of current approaches.

Large language models (LLMs) remain unreliable for high-stakes claim verification due to hallucinations and shallow reasoning. While retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) and multi-agent debate (MAD) address this, they are limited by one-pass retrieval and unstructured debate dynamics. We propose a courtroom-style multi-agent framework, PROClaim, that reformulates verification as a structured, adversarial deliberation. Our approach integrates specialized roles (e.g., Plaintiff, Defense, Judge) with Progressive RAG (P-RAG) to dynamically expand and refine the evidence pool during the debate. Furthermore, we employ evidence negotiation, self-reflection, and heterogeneous multi-judge aggregation to enforce calibration, robustness, and diversity. In zero-shot evaluations on the Check-COVID benchmark, PROClaim achieves 81.7% accuracy, outperforming standard multi-agent debate by 10.0 percentage points, with P-RAG driving the primary performance gains (+7.5 pp). We ultimately demonstrate that structural deliberation and model heterogeneity effectively mitigate systematic biases, providing a robust foundation for reliable claim verification. Our code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/mnc13/PROClaim.

As LLMs are increasingly used to draft public-facing arguments, they may flatten public debate by repeatedly introducing the same polished, plausible arguments. We study argument collapse, the tendency of essays generated by different LLMs to converge to a smaller set of main arguments, sub-arguments, and paragraph-level structures. We compare 1,039 human responses from 195 New York Times (NYT) debates, 448 human responses from 61 longer-form Boston Review (BR) forums, and 23,384 LLM-generated essays. In the NYT corpus, 65.3% of human main arguments are unique within a debate, compared to 3.4% of LLM main arguments. Asking LLMs to generate diverse answers adds variation, but a typical model recovers only about half of the distinct human main arguments, with much of the added variation falling outside the observed human argument space. Collapse also appears in sub-arguments, where among essays with the same main argument, 41.0% of human sub-arguments are unique versus 9.1% from LLM responses. Qualitatively, LLMs often reuse generalized and hedged sub-arguments, while humans prefer more concrete and topic-specific ones. Structure-wise, LLM-generated essays tend to follow a more fixed arc, often opening with a direct claim and moving quickly toward proposals. The same patterns hold in longer BR essays, suggesting that argument collapse extends beyond short-form responses.

LLM-based multi-agent systems demonstrate great potential for tackling complex problems, but how competition shapes their behavior remains underexplored. This paper investigates the over-competition in multi-agent debate, where agents under extreme pressure exhibit unreliable, harmful behaviors that undermine both collaboration and task performance. To study this phenomenon, we propose HATE, the Hunger Game Debate, a novel experimental framework that simulates debates under a zero-sum competition arena. Our experiments, conducted across a range of LLMs and tasks, reveal that competitive pressure significantly stimulates over-competition behaviors and degrades task performance, causing discussions to derail. We further explore the impact of environmental feedback by adding variants of judges, indicating that objective, task-focused feedback effectively mitigates the over-competition behaviors. We also probe the post-hoc kindness of LLMs and form a leaderboard to characterize top LLMs, providing insights for understanding and governing the emergent social dynamics of AI community.

This paper presents the Entropy-Driven Unified Process Reward Model (EDU-PRM), a novel framework that approximates state-of-the-art performance in process supervision while drastically reducing training costs. EDU-PRM introduces an entropy-guided dynamic step partitioning mechanism, using logit distribution entropy to pinpoint high-uncertainty regions during token generation dynamically. This self-assessment capability enables precise step-level feedback without manual fine-grained annotation, addressing a critical challenge in process supervision. Experiments on the Qwen2.5-72B model with only 7,500 EDU-PRM-generated training queries demonstrate accuracy closely approximating the full Qwen2.5-72B-PRM (71.1% vs. 71.6%), achieving a 98% reduction in query cost compared to prior methods. This work establishes EDU-PRM as an efficient approach for scalable process reward model training.

In recent years, large language models have greatly improved in their ability to perform complex multi-step reasoning. However, even state-of-the-art models still regularly produce logical mistakes. To train more reliable models, we can turn either to outcome supervision, which provides feedback for a final result, or process supervision, which provides feedback for each intermediate reasoning step. Given the importance of training reliable models, and given the high cost of human feedback, it is important to carefully compare the both methods. Recent work has already begun this comparison, but many questions still remain. We conduct our own investigation, finding that process supervision significantly outperforms outcome supervision for training models to solve problems from the challenging MATH dataset. Our process-supervised model solves 78% of problems from a representative subset of the MATH test set. Additionally, we show that active learning significantly improves the efficacy of process supervision. To support related research, we also release PRM800K, the complete dataset of 800,000 step-level human feedback labels used to train our best reward model.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems for Large Language Models (LLMs) hold promise in knowledge-intensive tasks but face limitations in complex multi-step reasoning. While recent methods have integrated RAG with chain-of-thought reasoning or test-time search using Process Reward Models (PRMs), these approaches encounter challenges such as a lack of explanations, bias in PRM training data, early-step bias in PRM scores, and insufficient post-training optimization of reasoning potential. To address these issues, we propose Retrieval-Augmented Reasoning through Trustworthy Process Rewarding (ReARTeR), a framework that enhances RAG systems' reasoning capabilities through post-training and test-time scaling. At test time, ReARTeR introduces Trustworthy Process Rewarding via a Process Reward Model for accurate scalar scoring and a Process Explanation Model (PEM) for generating natural language explanations, enabling step refinement. During post-training, it utilizes Monte Carlo Tree Search guided by Trustworthy Process Rewarding to collect high-quality step-level preference data, optimized through Iterative Preference Optimization. ReARTeR addresses three core challenges: (1) misalignment between PRM and PEM, tackled through off-policy preference learning; (2) bias in PRM training data, mitigated by balanced annotation methods and stronger annotations for challenging examples; and (3) early-step bias in PRM, resolved through a temporal-difference-based look-ahead search strategy. Experimental results on multi-step reasoning benchmarks demonstrate significant improvements, underscoring ReARTeR's potential to advance the reasoning capabilities of RAG systems.

Today's reasoning models use thinking tokens to attain stronger performance on benchmarks than their instruction-tuned counterparts. It is also generally believed that this more "deliberative" mode should improve alignment and safety, by providing the model a safe space to consider whether its planned answer to a request violates its safety principles. We present evidence that this intuition is not always correct. Across frontier open-weight reasoning models spanning GPT-OSS, Qwen, Olmo, and Phi families, we find that the eventual refusal/compliance outcome is already strongly predictable via a trained head on the first token's hidden representation (0.84-0.95 AUROC and sim88% balanced accuracy for predicting refusal/compliance) before any visible thinking. The thinking process turns out to be more akin to prefix completion than to deliberative revision, with the final outcome rarely changing after the first sim20% of thinking, despite giving the appearance of deliberation at the text level (sim74% of text-level deliberations occur when the response distribution is already locked to one refusal/compliance side). We also find that existing inference-time and training-based safety interventions, despite being motivated by the goal of inducing deliberation, largely shift model behavior toward over-refusal while suppressing already-scarce deliberation signals. Our results suggest that safety behavior in current reasoning models is much less deliberative than commonly assumed, and highlight the need for methods that induce real safety deliberation.

Recent work on reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has shown that large language models (LLMs) can be substantially improved using outcome-level verification signals, such as unit tests for code or exact-match checks for mathematics. In parallel, process supervision has long been explored as a way to shape the intermediate reasoning behaviour of LLMs, but existing approaches rely on neural judges to score chain-of-thought steps, leaving them vulnerable to opacity, bias, and reward hacking. To address this gap, we introduce Verifiable Process Reward Models (VPRMs), a reinforcement-learning framework in which intermediate reasoning steps are checked by deterministic, rule-based verifiers. We apply VPRMs to risk-of-bias assessment for medical evidence synthesis, a domain where guideline-defined criteria and rule-based decision paths enable programmatic verification of reasoning traces. Across multiple datasets, we find that VPRMs generate reasoning that adheres closely to domain rules and achieve substantially higher coherence between step-level decisions and final labels. Results show that VPRMs achieve up to 20% higher F1 than state-of-the-art models and 6.5% higher than verifiable outcome rewards, with substantial gains in evidence grounding and logical coherence.

In many domains of argumentation, people's arguments are driven by so-called attitude roots, i.e., underlying beliefs and world views, and their corresponding attitude themes. Given the strength of these latent drivers of arguments, recent work in psychology suggests that instead of directly countering surface-level reasoning (e.g., falsifying given premises), one should follow an argumentation style inspired by the Jiu-Jitsu 'soft' combat system (Hornsey and Fielding, 2017): first, identify an arguer's attitude roots and themes, and then choose a prototypical rebuttal that is aligned with those drivers instead of invalidating those. In this work, we are the first to explore Jiu-Jitsu argumentation for peer review by proposing the novel task of attitude and theme-guided rebuttal generation. To this end, we enrich an existing dataset for discourse structure in peer reviews with attitude roots, attitude themes, and canonical rebuttals. To facilitate this process, we recast established annotation concepts from the domain of peer reviews (e.g., aspects a review sentence is relating to) and train domain-specific models. We then propose strong rebuttal generation strategies, which we benchmark on our novel dataset for the task of end-to-end attitude and theme-guided rebuttal generation and two subtasks.

Dense process rewards have proven a more effective alternative to the sparse outcome-level rewards in the inference-time scaling of large language models (LLMs), particularly in tasks requiring complex multi-step reasoning. While dense rewards also offer an appealing choice for the reinforcement learning (RL) of LLMs since their fine-grained rewards have the potential to address some inherent issues of outcome rewards, such as training efficiency and credit assignment, this potential remains largely unrealized. This can be primarily attributed to the challenges of training process reward models (PRMs) online, where collecting high-quality process labels is prohibitively expensive, making them particularly vulnerable to reward hacking. To address these challenges, we propose PRIME (Process Reinforcement through IMplicit rEwards), which enables online PRM updates using only policy rollouts and outcome labels through implict process rewards. PRIME combines well with various advantage functions and forgoes the dedicated reward model training phrase that existing approaches require, substantially reducing the development overhead. We demonstrate PRIME's effectiveness on competitional math and coding. Starting from Qwen2.5-Math-7B-Base, PRIME achieves a 15.1% average improvement across several key reasoning benchmarks over the SFT model. Notably, our resulting model, Eurus-2-7B-PRIME, surpasses Qwen2.5-Math-7B-Instruct on seven reasoning benchmarks with 10% of its training data.

Optimization modeling underpins real-world decision-making in logistics, manufacturing, energy, and public services, but reliably solving such problems from natural-language requirements remains challenging for current large language models (LLMs). In this paper, we propose Agora-Opt, a modular agentic framework for optimization modeling that combines decentralized debate with a read-write memory bank. Agora-Opt allows multiple agent teams to independently produce end-to-end solutions and reconcile them through an outcome-grounded debate protocol, while memory stores solver-verified artifacts and past disagreement resolutions to support training-free improvement over time. This design is flexible across both backbones and methods: it reduces base-model lock-in, transfers across different LLM families, and can be layered onto existing pipelines with minimal coupling. Across public benchmarks, Agora-Opt achieves the strongest overall performance among all compared methods, outperforming strong zero-shot LLMs, training-centric approaches, and prior agentic baselines. Further analyses show robust gains across backbone choices and component variants, and demonstrate that decentralized debate offers a structural advantage over centralized selection by enabling agents to refine candidate solutions through interaction and even recover correct formulations when all initial candidates are flawed. These results suggest that reliable optimization modeling benefits from combining collaborative cross-checking with reusable experience, and position Agora-Opt as a practical and extensible foundation for trustworthy optimization modeling assistance. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/CHIANGEL/Agora-Opt.

Large Language Models (LLMs) often exhibit sycophancy, distorting responses to align with user beliefs, notably by readily agreeing with user counterarguments. Paradoxically, LLMs are increasingly adopted as successful evaluative agents for tasks such as grading and adjudicating claims. This research investigates that tension: why do LLMs show sycophancy when challenged in subsequent conversational turns, yet perform well when evaluating conflicting arguments presented simultaneously? We empirically tested these contrasting scenarios by varying key interaction patterns. We find that state-of-the-art models: (1) are more likely to endorse a user's counterargument when framed as a follow-up from a user, rather than when both responses are presented simultaneously for evaluation; (2) show increased susceptibility to persuasion when the user's rebuttal includes detailed reasoning, even when the conclusion of the reasoning is incorrect; and (3) are more readily swayed by casually phrased feedback than by formal critiques, even when the casual input lacks justification. Our results highlight the risk of relying on LLMs for judgment tasks without accounting for conversational framing.