mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

A Multi-Agent Conversational Bandit Approach to Online Evaluation and Selection of User-Aligned LLM Responses

arXiv 2501.01849 ↗First posted 3 Jan 2025cs.HC cs.AIcited by 8

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks

also in 1 more
Abstract (arXiv)

Prompt-based offline methods are commonly used to optimize large language model (LLM) responses, but evaluating these responses is computationally intensive and often fails to accommodate diverse response styles. This study introduces a novel online evaluation framework that employs a multi-agent conversational bandit model to select optimal responses while aligning with user preferences dynamically. To tackle challenges such as high-dimensional features, large response sets, adaptive conversational needs, and multi-device access, we propose MACO, Multi-Agent Conversational Online Learning, which comprises two key components: (1) textttMACO-A: Executed by local agents, it employs an online elimination mechanism to filter out low-quality responses. (2) textttMACO-S: Executed by the cloud server, it adaptively adjusts selection strategies based on aggregated preference data. An adaptive preference mechanism triggers asynchronous conversations to enhance alignment efficiency. Theoretical analysis demonstrates that MACO achieves near-optimal regret bounds, matching state-of-the-art performance in various degenerate cases. Extensive experiments utilizing Google and OpenAI text embedding models on the real-world datasets with different response styles, combined with Llama and GPT-4o, show that MACO consistently outperforms baseline methods by at least 8.29% across varying response set sizes and numbers of agents.

Key facts. Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 13 of its 45 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 3 Jan 2025.

Builds on

13 of 45 references.

References · 13

  1. 2019Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networkscited by 9,170
  2. 2023Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Modelcited by 8,065
  3. 2023Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4cited by 2,592
  4. 2023FrugalGPT: How to Use Large Language Models While Reducing Cost and Improving Performancecited by 853
  5. 2023OpenAssistant Conversations -- Democratizing Large Language Model Alignmentcited by 721
  6. 2021Federated Linear Contextual Banditscited by 61
  7. 2024Which LLM to Play? Convergence-Aware Online Model Selection with Time-Increasing Banditscited by 27
  8. 2023Auto-Instruct: Automatic Instruction Generation and Ranking for Black-Box Language Modelscited by 21
  9. 2024On Speeding Up Language Model Evaluationcited by 15
  10. 2022Comparison-based Conversational Recommender System with Relative Bandit Feedbackcited by 12
  11. 2023Efficient Explorative Key-term Selection Strategies for Conversational Contextual Banditscited by 12
  12. 2024FedConPE: Efficient Federated Conversational Bandits with Heterogeneous Clientscited by 6
1 more
  1. 2024StyleChat: Learning Recitation-Augmented Memory in LLMs for Stylized Dialogue Generationcited by 5

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2025: 8.

8 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025Adaptive Multi-Agent Response Refinement in Conversational Systems
  2. 2025ART: Adaptive Response Tuning Framework -- A Multi-Agent Tournament-Based Approach to LLM Response Optimization
  3. 2025Evaluating LLM-based Agents for Multi-Turn Conversations: A Survey
  4. 2024Sample-Efficient Alignment for LLMs
  5. 2026A Component-Based Survey of Interactions between Large Language Models and Multi-Armed Bandits
  6. 2024AQA: Adaptive Question Answering in a Society of LLMs via Contextual Multi-Armed Bandit
  7. 2024Self-Exploring Language Models: Active Preference Elicitation for Online Alignment
  8. 2025Beyond Single Models: Enhancing LLM Detection of Ambiguity in Requests through Debate