# Faithful, Unfaithful or Ambiguous? Multi-Agent Debate with Initial Stance for Summary Evaluation

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.08514 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.08514/

## Key facts

- Cited by 10 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 23 of its 47 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 12 Feb 2025.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Social simulation and multi-agent debate](https://mlsanity.com/agents/social-simulation-and-multi-agent-debate/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 23 of 23)

- [Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.11171/) (2022)
- [BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERT](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1904.09675/) (2019)
- [G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.16634/) (2023)
- [MetaGPT: Meta Programming for A Multi-Agent Collaborative Framework](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.00352/) (2023)
- [Improving Factuality and Reasoning in Language Models through Multiagent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14325/) (2023)
- [Encouraging Divergent Thinking in Large Language Models through Multi-Agent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.19118/) (2023)
- [ChatDev: Communicative Agents for Software Development](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.07924/) (2023)
- [ChatEval: Towards Better LLM-based Evaluators through Multi-Agent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.07201/) (2023)
- [Evaluating the Factual Consistency of Abstractive Text Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1910.12840/) (2019)
- [Replacing Judges with Juries: Evaluating LLM Generations with a Panel of Diverse Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.18796/) (2024)
- [MiniCheck: Efficient Fact-Checking of LLMs on Grounding Documents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.10774/) (2024)
- [Exploring Collaboration Mechanisms for LLM Agents: A Social Psychology View](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.02124/) (2023)
- [Rethinking the Bounds of LLM Reasoning: Are Multi-Agent Discussions the Key?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.18272/) (2024)
- [Evaluating Factuality in Generation with Dependency-level Entailment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2010.05478/) (2020)
- [Should we be going MAD? A Look at Multi-Agent Debate Strategies for LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.17371/) (2023)
- [MediaSum: A Large-scale Media Interview Dataset for Dialogue Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.06410/) (2021)
- [Understanding Factual Errors in Summarization: Errors, Summarizers, Datasets, Error Detectors](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.12854/) (2022)
- [MeetingBank: A Benchmark Dataset for Meeting Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.17529/) (2023)
- [FineSurE: Fine-grained Summarization Evaluation using LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.00908/) (2024)
- [ChatGPT as a Factual Inconsistency Evaluator for Text Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.15621/) (2023)
- [TofuEval: Evaluating Hallucinations of LLMs on Topic-Focused Dialogue Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.13249/) (2024)
- [Stance Detection with Collaborative Role-Infused LLM-Based Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.10467/) (2023)
- [SEAHORSE: A Multilingual, Multifaceted Dataset for Summarization Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.13194/) (2023)

## Built on by (most cited first, 10 of 10)

- [Multi-Agent-as-Judge: Aligning LLM-Agent-Based Automated Evaluation with Multi-Dimensional Human Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.21028/) (2025)
- [Agent-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.05111/) (2026)
- [Towards Multi-dimensional Evaluation of LLM Summarization across Domains and Languages](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.00549/) (2025)
- [AD-AGENT: A Multi-agent Framework for End-to-end Anomaly Detection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.12594/) (2025)
- [Multi-Agent Debate Strategies: Survey, Taxonomy, and Challenges](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.26212/) (2026)
- [Beyond Single Models: Enhancing LLM Detection of Ambiguity in Requests through Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.12370/) (2025)
- [Completing Missing Annotation: Multi-Agent Debate for Accurate and Scalable Relevant Assessment for IR Benchmarks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.06526/) (2026)
- [A Large-Scale Multi-Dimensional Empirical Study of LLMs for Conversation Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.15974/) (2026)
- [Is the Top Still Spinning? Evaluating Subjectivity in Narrative Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.01132/) (2025)
- [BLUEmed: Retrieval-Augmented Multi-Agent Debate for Clinical Error Detection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.10389/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Faithfulness evaluators based on large language models (LLMs) are often fooled by the fluency of the text and struggle with identifying errors in the summaries. We propose an approach to summary faithfulness evaluation in which multiple LLM-based agents are assigned initial stances (regardless of what their belief might be) and forced to come up with a reason to justify the imposed belief, thus engaging in a multi-round debate to reach an agreement. The uniformly distributed initial assignments result in a greater diversity of stances leading to more meaningful debates and ultimately more errors identified. Furthermore, by analyzing the recent faithfulness evaluation datasets, we observe that naturally, it is not always the case for a summary to be either faithful to the source document or not. We therefore introduce a new dimension, ambiguity, and a detailed taxonomy to identify such special cases. Experiments demonstrate our approach can help identify ambiguities, and have even a stronger performance on non-ambiguous summaries.