mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Tree-of-Debate: Multi-Persona Debate Trees Elicit Critical Thinking for Scientific Comparative Analysis

arXiv 2502.14767 ↗First posted 20 Feb 2025cs.CL cs.AIcited by 6

On the map: LLM reasoning → Reasoning for agents, planning and code

Abstract (arXiv)

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.

Key facts. Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Reasoning for agents, planning and code, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 10 of its 35 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 20 Feb 2025.

Builds on

10 of 35 references.

References · 10

  1. 2023ChatEval: Towards Better LLM-based Evaluators through Multi-Agent Debatecited by 742
  2. 2023C-Pack: Packed Resources For General Chinese Embeddingscited by 578
  3. 2024Two Tales of Persona in LLMs: A Survey of Role-Playing and Personalizationcited by 208
  4. 2023Improving Language Model Negotiation with Self-Play and In-Context Learning from AI Feedbackcited by 207
  5. 2023Bridging the Novice-Expert Gap via Models of Decision-Making: A Case Study on Remediating Math Mistakescited by 52
  6. 2017Active Learning for Convolutional Neural Networks: A Core-Set Approachcited by 36
  7. 2020Explaining Relationships Between Scientific Documentscited by 35
  8. 2024Instruct, Not Assist: LLM-based Multi-Turn Planning and Hierarchical Questioning for Socratic Code Debuggingcited by 14
  9. 2021Bursting Scientific Filter Bubbles: Boosting Innovation via Novel Author Discoverycited by 13
  10. 2024STRUM-LLM: Attributed and Structured Contrastive Summarizationcited by 4

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 2; 2026: 4.

6 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025Strategic Planning and Rationalizing on Trees Make LLMs Better Debaters
  2. 2026Large Knowledge Model: From Papers to a Scientific Reasoning Landscape
  3. 2024Diversity of Thought Elicits Stronger Reasoning Capabilities in Multi-Agent Debate Frameworks
  4. 2025ELLIS Alicante at CQs-Gen 2025: Winning the critical thinking questions shared task: LLM-based question generation and selection
  5. 2025THE-Tree: Can Tracing Historical Evolution Enhance Scientific Verification and Reasoning?
  6. 2024Debate-to-Write: A Persona-Driven Multi-Agent Framework for Diverse Argument Generation
  7. 2026L-MAD: A Systematic Evaluation of Multi-Agent Debate Structures in Legal Reasoning
  8. 2026LLM-based Argument Mining meets Argumentation and Description Logics: a Unified Framework for Reasoning about Debates