Do LLM Debates Repeat Arguments Differently Across Languages?

LLM debate is usually evaluated by final answers, yet transcripts reveal whether later turns develop new arguments or return to earlier claims in new wording. We study this process with \textit{prior-argument similarity}, which compares extracted argument units with earlier units in the same debate. In controlled eight-turn debates over 71 motions, six languages, and four model agents, Chinese is the only tested language with a consistently positive gap relative to English across three multilingual embedding models. The gap persists across agents, turn positions, regression adjustment, metric variants, extraction-length controls, a second-extractor subset, and cross-encoder tail rescoring. Manual calibration shows weak item-level alignment but a high-similarity tail enriched for substantive repetition. A diversity-aware prompt lowers \textit{prior-argument similarity} across languages, yet does not significantly narrow the Chinese--English gap. Multilingual debate evaluation should therefore measure argumentative development over time and report both average and gap terms.

Democratic ICAI: Debating Our Way to Steering Principles from Preferences

Preference-based alignment often struggles to capture the reasoning that underlies human judgments. Many evaluations rely on multiple interacting criteria, yet pairwise labels reveal only the final choice rather than the considerations that shape preferences. Inverse Constitutional AI (ICAI) improves interpretability in decision making by summarizing preferences into natural-language principles, but its single-pass explanations miss much of the nuance involved in complex decisions. We introduce Democratic ICAI (DICAI), a novel approach that gathers multiple competing rationales through structured persona debate, offering a broader and more expressive account of the factors influencing each comparison. From these richer signals, we derive clearer and more comprehensive steering principles and use them to guide preference decision modeling through both LLM-based and decision-tree judges, as well as downstream model training via constitution-induced preference labels. Experiments on creative preference benchmarks, MuCE-Pref and LiTBench, across multiple creative task categories show that Democratic ICAI yields a more faithful preference structure. It improves average preference prediction across tasks relative to deliberative prompting and principle-based baselines, while producing constitutions that LLM annotators prefer.

DEFINED: A Data-Efficient Computational Framework for Fine-Grained Creativity Assessment in Debate Scenarios

Human creativity has emerged as a critical competency in the era of large language models. Assessing creativity in complex, open-ended environments is a grand challenge in data mining, currently hindered by a reliance on standardized simple tasks and the scarcity of fine-grained expert data. As an ecologically valid assessment context, debate reflects multiple dimensions of creativity, encompassing both divergent thinking and convergent thinking. Moreover, debate is a data-rich domain, with a large volume of publicly accessible materials. Current mainstream automated scoring methods are poorly suited to complex settings such as debate, and therefore still rely on costly human evaluation. To this end, this paper proposes DEFINED, a data-efficient computational framework for fine-grained creativity assessment in debate scenarios. DEFINED operationalizes debate creativity through a hierarchical eight-dimensional metric system, implemented via a pre-trained autoregressive language model with a hierarchical scoring head that supports both fine-grained and coarse-grained evaluation. Statements and their associated expert scores were obtained from authentic debate competitions, and a constrained data augmentation strategy was employed to address the elite bias inherent in the original data. DEFINED adopts a mixed-granularity training strategy enabling robust learning from limited fine-grained supervision annotated by trained graduate experts. To rigorously validate ecological validity beyond synthetic benchmarks, we incorporate an empirical study with debate-naive participants, utilizing these authentic data to serve as a qualitative case study for mid-to-low proficiency populations. Across our evaluation protocol, our scoring model achieves accurate and stable scoring, outperforming prompt-based large language model evaluators and existing debate scoring methods.