A Theory of Post-hoc Debate Judgement

Debates have recently emerged as a useful methodology for agentic AI to improve performance as well as to aid explainability and user engagement. For example, LLM-empowered agents may debate internally (with themselves) and/or externally (with other agents). In many settings where debates are used, debates' outcomes and resulting outputs are determined post-hoc by external judges, often LLMs. In this paper we develop and test a novel theory of debate judgement applicable to all settings where agents engage in debates by providing pros and cons for their opinions therein. Specifically, we identify a number of formal properties that debate judgement may be required to satisfy in general, as concerns reproducibility, robustness, groundedness and explainability. Then, we explore their satisfaction formally and/or experimentally, for claim verification settings, for two specific alternative debate judgement methods: variants of the LLMs as a judge idea and formal semantics drawn from computational argumentation. We show that the two methods give similar accuracy performances but the former may lack formal guarantees that the latter brings. Overall, our study indicates argumentation semantics as an ideal candidate for principled judges in debate-driven AI.

Sharding Prevents LLM Oversight Failures and Adversarial Exploitation

Giving an LLM judge more compute does not necessarily make it check more requirements. When one call must return many verdicts, some decisions become weakly grounded in the evidence, even when that call receives the same token or tool budget as a panel of separate calls. Across expert-graded research replications, legal work, and clinical-trial assessments, agreement with experts falls as the number of verdicts per call grows. We identify sharding as the intervention that mitigates this failure in model-based oversight. Sharding partitions the requirements into smaller groups, assigns each group to a separate call, and aggregates the verdicts. Against a single call with the panel's full budget, sharding improves agreement while holding the model, evidence, total budget, and per-decision budget fixed. Overall, we find that a sharded weaker judge can outperform a more capable holistic judge and match that judge even when the latter receives the panel's full budget. Additionally, we find that sharding exhibits robustness against adversaries. A best-of-N adversary can hold the underlying work fixed, vary only its presentation, and increase an overloaded judge's acceptance of genuinely unmet criteria severalfold. Wherever sharding reduces baseline error, it removes this adversarial advantage, keeping over-acceptance low even as the adversary's search widens. Sharding does not address attacks that persuade the judge separately on each criterion rather than exploiting overload. In that setting, we find that debate-style opposition on top of sharding withstands such adaptive re-optimization.

Relational Priors as Convergence Pressure in LLM-Based Multi-Agent Systems

Large language model-based multi-agent systems (LLM-MAS) are designed through roles, debate protocols, and aggregation rules. These choices create implicit social expectations: agents may be expected to trust, challenge, defer to, or collaborate with peers. We study the effects of making inter-agent relation semantics explicit. We use a minimal signed-network formulation of relational priors and inject natural-language renderings into agent system prompts while holding the task protocol fixed. Across a commons-governance simulation and multi-agent debate, relational priors primarily act as convergence pressure: increasing relational positivity tends to make agents coordinate or agree more readily. This pressure can help when utility rewards behavioral alignment, as in sustainable resource governance and subjective consensus. It does not, however, reliably improve accuracy. In objective QA debates, higher positivity can increase agreement even when correctness-conditioned agreement does not improve and may decline in some settings. Effects vary by model backbone, relation type, and topology; explicit neutrality is not equivalent to omitting relational framing. We argue that relational priors should not be a default add-on for LLM-MAS. Their safer use is diagnostic and task-specific: compare against a no-prior baseline, monitor correctness-conditioned metrics when truth matters, and omit the relational layer when validation does not justify it.

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.

Collaborative Disagreement Resolution for Scalable Oversight

Debate, where AI agents argue opposing positions, has emerged as a key approach to scalable oversight. However, debate faces a fundamental tension: models are incentivized to be persuasive to the judge, which may not always align with epistemic honesty. In this work, we propose an alternative paradigm: disagreement resolution, which reframes the interaction mechanism from adversarial debate to collaborative truth seeking. Drawing on principles from human mediation and conflict resolution, where mediators facilitate dialogue to help disputing parties reach consensus rather than adjudicating between them, we design an automated pipeline that adapts these strategies to AI oversight. Unlike standard debate where models argue for fixed positions, our pipeline directs models to collaboratively identify points of disagreement, examine the evidence for conflicting claims, and converge toward consensus or isolate the specific ''crux'' of their disagreement. We find that Disagreement Resolution consistently helps non-expert models identify the truth, achieving 62.1% judging accuracy compared to 49.2% for standard debate. Our results provide encouraging empirical evidence for rethinking the scalable oversight protocol from adversarial persuasion to collaborative truth-seeking.