mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Gradual Vigilance and Interval Communication: Enhancing Value Alignment in Multi-Agent Debates

arXiv 2412.13471 ↗First posted 18 Dec 2024cs.AI cs.CLcited by 4

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Social simulation and multi-agent debate

also in 1 more
Abstract (arXiv)

In recent years, large language models have shown exceptional performance in fulfilling diverse human needs. However, their training data can introduce harmful content, underscoring the necessity for robust value alignment. Mainstream methods, which depend on feedback learning and supervised training, are resource-intensive and may constrain the full potential of the models. Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) offers a more efficient and innovative solution by enabling the generation of reliable answers through agent interactions. To apply MAD to value alignment, we examine the relationship between the helpfulness and harmlessness of debate outcomes and individual responses, and propose a MAD based framework Gradual Vigilance and Interval Communication (GVIC). GVIC allows agents to assess risks with varying levels of vigilance and to exchange diverse information through interval communication. We theoretically prove that GVIC optimizes debate efficiency while reducing communication overhead. Experimental results demonstrate that GVIC consistently outperforms baseline methods across various tasks and datasets, particularly excelling in harmfulness mitigation and fraud prevention. Additionally, GVIC exhibits strong adaptability across different base model sizes, including both unaligned and aligned models, and across various task types.

Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Social simulation and multi-agent debate, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 20 of its 26 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 18 Dec 2024.

Builds on

20 of 26 references.

Closest ancestors · 1

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2023Encouraging Divergent Thinking in Large Language Models through Multi-Agent Debate30 May

Other references · 19

  1. 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,419
  2. 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,971
  3. 2023LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Modelscited by 14,132
  4. 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,626
  5. 2023Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Modelcited by 8,065
  6. 2022Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Modelscited by 5,708
  7. 2022Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedbackcited by 3,720
  8. 2022Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedbackcited by 3,050
  9. 2023Improving Factuality and Reasoning in Language Models through Multiagent Debatecited by 1,784
  10. 2023BeaverTails: Towards Improved Safety Alignment of LLM via a Human-Preference Datasetcited by 860
  11. 2023ChatEval: Towards Better LLM-based Evaluators through Multi-Agent Debatecited by 742
  12. 2023Preference Ranking Optimization for Human Alignmentcited by 285
7 more
  1. 2023Unleashing the Emergent Cognitive Synergy in Large Language Models: A Task-Solving Agent through Multi-Persona Self-Collaborationcited by 251
  2. 2023Chain of Hindsight Aligns Language Models with Feedbackcited by 148
  3. 2024RLAIF-V: Open-Source AI Feedback Leads to Super GPT-4V Trustworthinesscited by 131
  4. 2024Improving Multi-Agent Debate with Sparse Communication Topologycited by 107
  5. 2024ARGS: Alignment as Reward-Guided Searchcited by 103
  6. 2023Identifying and Mitigating the Security Risks of Generative AIcited by 91
  7. 2024Self-Alignment of Large Language Models via Monopolylogue-based Social Scene Simulationcited by 46

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 2; 2026: 2.

4 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Demystifying Multi-Agent Debate: The Role of Confidence and Diversity
  2. 2023Should we be going MAD? A Look at Multi-Agent Debate Strategies for LLMs
  3. 2026SVR-MAD: A Bayesian-Inspired Framework for Posterior-Guided Multi-Agent Debate
  4. 2025When and Why Does Multi-Agent Debate Fail and Does It Really Underperform?
  5. 2026ARMOR-MAD: Adaptive Routing for Heterogeneous Multi-Agent Debate in Large Language Model Reasoning
  6. 2025Revisiting Multi-Agent Debate as Test-Time Scaling: A Systematic Study of Conditional Effectiveness
  7. 2025Stop Overvaluing Multi-Agent Debate -- We Must Rethink Evaluation and Embrace Model Heterogeneity
  8. 2025Debate or Vote: Which Yields Better Decisions in Multi-Agent Large Language Models?