2411.00053

# ACC-Collab: An Actor-Critic Approach to Multi-Agent LLM Collaboration **Authors**: - Andrew Estornell (ByteDance Research) - &Jean-François Ton (ByteDance Research) - &Yuanshun Yao (Meta GenAI) - &Yang Liu (University of California, Santa Cruz) > Equal contribution. Correspondence to Work done while at ByteDance Research ## Abstract Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated a remarkable ability to serve as general-purpose tools for various language-based tasks. Recent works have demonstrated that the efficacy of such models can be improved through iterative dialog between multiple models. While these paradigms show promise in improving model efficacy, most works in this area treat collaboration as an emergent behavior, rather than a learned behavior. In doing so, current multi-agent frameworks rely on collaborative behaviors to have been sufficiently trained into off-the-shelf models. To address this limitation, we propose ACC-Collab, an A ctor- C riti c based learning framework to produce a two-agent team (an actor-agent and a critic-agent) specialized in collaboration. We demonstrate that ACC-Collab outperforms SotA multi-agent techniques on a wide array of benchmarks. ## 1 Introduction footnotetext: Code available at https://github.com/LlenRotse/ACC-Collab Recently, large language models (LLMs) have rapidly become a cornerstone in various applications, redefining how we process and generate language at scale (Thirunavukarasu et al., 2023; Hadi et al., 2023; Jiang et al., 2024). Their ability to handle diverse tasks, from translation (Zhu et al., 2024; Otter et al., 2020) to answering complex questions (Zhang et al., 2024; Hao et al., 2024; Havrilla et al., 2024), has attracted the attention of both industry as well as academia. However, despite these advancements, LLMs still exhibit notable weaknesses, particularly when it comes to answering factual questions and reasoning (Tonmoy et al., 2024; Rawte et al., 2023; Huang et al., 2023). To address these limitations, several techniques have been proposed, such as Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting (Wei et al., 2022), Self-Reflection (Ji et al., 2023; Shinn et al., 2023), and Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) (Du et al., 2023), to name a few. These approaches aim to improve the reasoning abilities of LLMs by guiding them toward more accurate answers through structured thinking or discourse. However, the majority of these techniques do not involve training the model specifically for these tasks but instead rely on zero-shot or few-shot capabilities. Similar to most multi-agent paradigms, MAD approaches make use of off-the-shelf general-purpose LLMs, which are not trained to collaborate. Such approaches rely on collaboration as an emergent, rather than a learned, behavior. While, in some cases, these emergent behaviors are sufficient, the question remains: Can these methods be improved by imbuing models directly with collaborative abilities? To answer this, we propose training teams of LLMs to solve tasks collaboratively. A particularly relevant work is DebateGPT (Subramaniam et al., 2024), which employs debate as a mechanism to generate higher-quality fine-tuning data. Unlike our approach, which optimizes LLMs for multi-round collaborative problem-solving, their method focuses on using debate to enhance training data for a single model that produces individual responses. In this paper, we propose a novel framework A ctor- C riti c Collaboration (ACC-Collab) which jointly trains a two-agent team to collaboratively solve problems through iterative conversation; this team consists of an actor-agent, responsible for providing answers for a given task, and a critic-agent, responsible for assisting the actor-agent with feedback on its answers. In our training pipeline, we introduce a novel off-policy learning scheme called ”Guided-Collaboration” to generate high-quality multi-turn training data to enhance the actor’s and critic’s performance on challenging tasks. To summarize, our contributions are as follows: - We are the first to propose a framework for jointly training a team of LLM agents (Actor-Critic) within the context of collaborative problem solving. - We introduce a novel data generation scheme, “Guided Collaboration Trajectories”, which enables the efficient creation of high-quality training data for both the actor and critic roles. - Our extensive experiments demonstrate that our method, ACC-Collab, significantly outperforms existing state-of-the-art approaches. ## 2 Related Work Our research is closely related to the emerging field of multi-agent deliberation, sometimes called Multi-Agent Debate (MAD), which examines how to use groups of models to solve tasks through iterative discussion Chan et al. (2023); Liang et al. (2023); Du et al. (2023); Li et al. (2023c); Khan et al. (2024); Michael et al. (2023); Rasal (2024); Pham et al. (2023); Abdelnabi et al. (2023); Hong et al. (2023); Irving et al. (2018); Li et al. (2023b; d; 2024a); Wang et al. (2023a); Zhang et al. (2023). Many of these works find that language models have naturally collaborative abilities Singhal et al. (2023); Du et al. (2023); Chan et al. (2023), while others have noted that the collaborative ability of off-the-shelf models can be quite limited Wang et al. (2024); Smit et al. . Current approaches to multi-agent deliberation can be broadly cast into two main categories: those that modify model prompts and responses during the discussion Liang et al. (2023); Khan et al. (2024); Rasal (2024); Feng et al. (2024); Yang et al. (2024), and those that modify the structure of the deliberation process Li et al. (2023a); Hong et al. (2023); Liu et al. (2023); Li et al. (2024c); Wang et al. (2023b); Wu et al. (2023); Chen et al. (2023); Chang (2024b). Importantly, both categories use off-the-shelf language models (which have not been trained to collaborate) and work by modifying either the inputs or outputs of these models. Deviating from this line of work, we aim to specifically train a team of models to collaboratively solve tasks. Two works of particular note are that of Subramaniam et al. (2024), which proposes to use debate data to fine-tune models, and Li et al. (2024b), which trains models for adversarial debate. In the former, debate is used to generate higher-quality fine-tuning data and is not used at inference time; differing from this work, we train models directly to collaborate and use multi-agent discussion both during training and inference. In the latter, models are trained to be effective arguers rather than collaborators, i.e., models are trained to give conceiving arguments such that they can win a debate against other LLMs. Differing from this work, we train models to collaboratively solve tasks. In the context of multi-agent deliberation, the concept of divergent opinions is highly relevant to our method. Several approaches to multi-agent deliberation aim to control the level of disagreement among the agents Liang et al. (2023); Khan et al. (2024); Chang (2024a). Often, these works dynamically increase disagreement to prevent early convergence of deliberation. In our study, we leverage divergent opinions to generate high-quality training data. In particular, we have agents change their opinion during the discussion and measure whether or not that change increases or decreases the likelihood that the agents’ discussion converges to a correct answer. Using this signal we can then asses the value of a given training example for training the models. Also closely related to our work are paradigms that aim to use self-generated data to improve model performance, often in the context of reasoning or chain of thought Trung et al. (2024); Huang et al. (2024); Xiong et al. (2024); Chen et al. (2024); Pang et al. (2024b). Similar to this line of research, we make use of model generations as training data. However, we are the first work to use such data in the context of multiple models debating collaboratively to solve a given task. ## 3 Preliminaries and notation In this section, we formalize multi-agent collaboration between an Actor (an agent that provides answers) and a Critic (an agent that provides feedback to the actor) while also introducing the notation that will be used throughout the remainder of the paper. Let $(x,y)\sim\mathcal{D}$ be a task-answer pair source from a distribution of tasks and answers $\mathcal{D}$ . For a given task $x$ , two agents – an actor agent responsible for providing answers and a critic agent responsible for providing feedback and assistance to the actor agent – engage in an iterative discussion over $T$ rounds, to correctly infer the answer $y$ . Let $\theta_{a}$ and $\theta_{c}$ be the parameters of actor and critic agent, respectively. The iterative discussion between these two agents is as follows: 1. At round $t=0$ a task $x$ is given to the actor $\theta_{a}$ who provides an initial response $z_{a}^{(0)}$ . 1. Next, still at round $t=0$ , the critic $\theta_{c}$ views task $x$ and $z_{a}^{(0)}$ , then provides feedback $z_{c}^{(0)}$ . 1. For each round $t>0$ , the actor views the task $x$ , its own previous response $z_{a}^{(t-1)}$ and the critic’s feedback $z_{c}^{(t-1)}$ , then provides an updated response $z_{a}^{(t)}$ . 1. After the actor’s new response $z_{a}^{(t)}$ , the critic provides the feedback $z_{c}^{(t)}$ based on $z_{a}^{(t)}$ . The accuracy of this procedure is measured via the correctness of the actor’s final response, i.e., $\mathbb{I}\big{[}\zeta(z_{a}^{(T)})=y\big{]}$ . Where $\zeta$ is a function that extracts answers from text-based responses. For example if $z_{a}^{(T)}=$ “The sky is blue”, then $\zeta(z_{a}^{(T)})=$ “blue”. With this notation and formalization of multi-agent collaboration, we introduce our framework for training actor-critic teams. <details> <summary>extracted/6248978/plots/mainMethod_v4.png Details</summary>  ### Visual Description \n ## Diagram: Natural Debate Framework for Training Models ### Overview This diagram illustrates a "Natural Debate" framework for training models, likely reinforcement learning agents, involving an "Actor" and a "Critic" that interact and generate preference data for further model training. The diagram depicts the flow of information and decision-making processes within this framework. ### Components/Axes The diagram consists of the following key components: * **Actor:** Represented by a robot icon, positioned on the left side of the diagram. * **Critic:** Represented by a robot icon, positioned on the left side of the diagram, below the Actor. * **Actor Guided Towards y:** A pathway indicating the Actor's actions directed towards a goal 'y'. * **Actor Guided Away From y:** A pathway indicating the Actor's actions directed away from a goal 'y'. * **Natural Debate:** A central box encompassing the interaction between the Actor and Critic. * **z_a^(t) & z_c^(t):** State representations for the Actor and Critic at time 't'. These appear in multiple locations. * **z_a^(t-1) & z_c^(t-1):** State representations for the Actor and Critic at time 't-1'. * **Δ_y:** Represents the difference or change related to 'y'. * **Δ_ly:** Represents the local difference or change related to 'y'. * **Relative Quality of Trajectory:** A label describing the output of the comparison between Δ_y and a threshold ε. * **Preference Data:** A box containing the tuple (z_a^(t), z_a^(t), z_a^(t), z_a^(t)). * **Train Models:** A section depicting the use of preference data to train the Actor and Critic models. ### Detailed Analysis or Content Details The diagram shows a flow of information as follows: 1. **Actor & Critic States:** The Actor and Critic both have state representations denoted as z_a^(t) and z_c^(t) at time 't', and z_a^(t-1) and z_c^(t-1) at time 't-1'. These states are inputs to the "Natural Debate" process. 2. **Actor Guidance:** The Actor is guided both towards and away from a goal 'y'. This results in two separate pathways. 3. **Natural Debate & Comparison:** Within the "Natural Debate" box, the states are processed to calculate Δ_y and Δ_ly. 4. **Decision Logic:** A conditional statement is present: * **if Δ_y ≥ ε:** This condition leads to the generation of preference data. * **elif Δ_ly ≥ ε:** This condition also leads to the generation of preference data. 5. **Preference Data Generation:** The preference data is represented as a tuple: (z_a^(t), z_a^(t), z_a^(t), z_a^(t)). The exact meaning of this tuple is unclear without further context. 6. **Model Training:** The generated preference data is then used to "Train Models" – specifically, the Actor and Critic models. The diagram shows two separate training pathways, one for the Actor and one for the Critic. ### Key Observations * The diagram emphasizes a comparative learning process where the Actor and Critic evaluate trajectories based on their proximity to a goal 'y'. * The threshold 'ε' plays a crucial role in determining when preference data is generated. * The preference data appears to be based on the states of both the Actor and Critic. * The diagram does not provide specific numerical values or quantitative data. It is a conceptual illustration of a framework. ### Interpretation The diagram illustrates a novel approach to reinforcement learning training, termed "Natural Debate." The core idea is to have an Actor and a Critic engage in a debate about the quality of trajectories. The Critic evaluates the Actor's actions, and the difference (Δ_y or Δ_ly) between the current state and the goal 'y' determines whether preference data is generated. This preference data is then used to refine both the Actor and Critic models. The use of a threshold 'ε' suggests that only significant deviations from the goal trigger the generation of preference data, potentially focusing the learning process on more challenging or informative scenarios. The "Natural Debate" aspect likely refers to the iterative process of the Actor and Critic challenging each other, leading to more robust and effective learning. The tuple representing the preference data is somewhat ambiguous. It could represent a comparison of states, or a ranking of trajectories. Without further context, it's difficult to determine its precise meaning. The diagram is a high-level overview and does not delve into the specific algorithms or implementation details of the "Natural Debate" framework. It serves as a conceptual blueprint for a potentially powerful learning paradigm. </details> Figure 1: ACC-Collab training pipeline, exemplified for the actor. 1) We generate data from both natural deliberation as well as guided deliberation towards and away from the ground truth answer $y$ using the actor and critic. 2) We compute the relative quality of each trajectory based on the expected quality difference $\Delta_{y},\Delta_{!y}$ w.r.t. to the natural response. 3) We store all high-quality pairwise data in our database and train the actor agent. 4) We alternate this procedure for the actor and critic. See Figure 5 of the supplement for the corresponding procedure applied to the critic. ## 4 Methodology In this section, we outline our procedure for training a two-agent team, consisting of an actor agent $f_{\theta_{a}}$ (responsible for providing answers to a given task $x$ ) and a critic agent $f_{\theta_{c}}$ (responsible for providing feedback and assistance to the actor). At inference time, the two trained agents engage in iterative discussion to solve a given task $x$ , generating the final response $z_{a}^{(T)}$ . ### 4.1 An Actor-Critic Collaboration Framework Building upon our established notation from the previous section and the general actor-critic framework, we formally define our optimization objective as follows For clarity, we note that the term $\arg\max\limits_{\theta_{a}}\max\limits_{\theta_{b}}$ captures the solution for both parameters $\theta_{a},\theta_{c}$ in the corresponding bi-level max-max optimization. Here $\theta_{c}$ is in $z_{c}^{(T-1)}=f_{\theta_{c}}\big{(}x,z_{a}^{(T-1)}\big{)}$ : $$ \displaystyle\theta_{a}^{*},\,\theta_{c}^{*}=\arg\max_{\theta_{a}}\max_{\theta _{c}}\mathbb{E}_{(x,y)\sim D}\bigg{[}\zeta\bigg{(}\underbrace{f_{\theta_{a}} \big{(}x,z_{a}^{(T-1)},z_{c}^{(T-1)}\big{)}}_{\text{actor's final response}~{} z_{a}^{(T)}}\bigg{)}=y\bigg{]} \tag{1} $$ Intuitively, Eq. 1 aims to simultaneously optimize the actor’s parameters $\theta_{a}$ and the critic’s parameters $\theta_{c}$ , ensuring that the actor’s final output at iteration $T$ matches the correct answer $y$ . In other words, we optimize the accuracy of the actor’s response at time $T$ , namely $$ z_{a}^{(T)}=f_{\theta_{a}}\left(x,z_{a}^{(T-1)},z_{c}^{(T-1)}\right), $$ where accuracy is measured as $\mathbb{E}\big{[}\zeta\big{(}z_{a}^{(T)}\big{)}=y\big{]}$ . It is important to note that the recursive nature of multi-agent deliberation introduces significant complexity to the optimization process. Each response $z_{a}^{(t)}$ depends not only on the actor’s previous output $z_{a}^{(t-1)}$ but also on the critic’s previous output $z_{c}^{(t-1)}$ . This interaction closely resembles a cooperative dynamic Stackelberg game (Li & Sethi, 2017), where two players engage in hierarchical decision-making over time, leading us to adopt an iterative best-response approach (Fiez et al., 2019). In other words, we first train the critic agent, followed by training the actor to best respond to the critic’s output. We can then update the critic to adapt to the newly trained actor, and so on. More formally, this process works by first fixing $\theta_{a}$ , and solving, $$ \displaystyle\theta_{c}^{*}=\arg\max_{\theta_{c}}\mathbb{E}_{(x,y)\sim D}\bigg {[}\zeta\bigg{(}f_{\theta_{a}}\bigg{(}x,z_{a}^{(T-1)},~{}\underbrace{f_{\theta _{c}}\big{(}x,z_{a}^{(T-1)}\big{)}}_{\text{critic's response}~{}z_{c}^{(T-1)}} \bigg{)}\bigg{)}=y\bigg{]} \tag{2} $$ then fixing $\theta_{c}^{*}$ from above, we solve $$ \displaystyle\theta_{a}^{*}=\arg\max_{\theta_{a}}\mathbb{E}_{(x,y)\sim D}\bigg {[}\zeta\bigg{(}f_{\theta_{a}}\bigg{(}x,z_{a}^{(T-1)},~{}f_{\theta_{c}^{*}} \big{(}x,z_{a}^{(T-1)}\big{)}\bigg{)}\bigg{)}=y\bigg{]} \tag{3} $$ this process then repeats until a desired stopping criteria is reached. In practice, we find that a single iteration is sufficient to produce a high-quality collaborative team. While this alternating scheme allows us to optimize the actor and critic separately, the objectives of each agent still cannot be optimized directly due to the recursive nature of agent responses in this objective; responses at round $T$ depend on those given by the agent at round $t-1$ which themselves depend on the response given at round $t-2$ and so on. To deal with this temporal dependency, we next introduce the concept of Partial Trajectory rewards, which will allow us to capture the signal of each response $z^{(t)}$ for each $t\leq T$ . ### 4.2 Partial Trajectory Reward To address the inter-round dependencies of the above optimization, we proposed a scheme that allows us to determine the “goodness” of a given response $z^{(t)}$ (from either the actor or the critic) for any $t\leq T$ . Consider a conversation between the actor and the critic that was paused at time $t$ , i.e., the most recent response is $z^{(t)}$ . To assess the goodness of $z^{(t)}$ , one might ask how likely the deliberation procedure will converge to the correct answer $y$ at round $T$ , given that the procedure is already at response $z^{(t)}$ . Formally, we can define this as $$ \displaystyle r(z^{(t)},x,y)=\mathbb{E}\bigg{[}\zeta(z_{a}^{(T)})=y|~{}x,z^{(t )}\bigg{]} \tag{4} $$ Intuitively, the partial reward captures the expectation of arriving at the correct answer $y$ through deliberation starting at round $t$ with generation $z^{(t)}$ . In practice, $r(z^{(t)},x,y)$ can be estimated by learning the reward $r$ or by using heuristics such as one-step roll-out, i.e., Monte Carlo estimation. In our experiments, we use one-step roll-out heuristics, i.e. simulating an additional deliberation round multiple times from response $z^{(t)}$ . The reward $r(z^{(t)},x,y)$ is set as the average accuracy of these simulations. Empirically, we find this approach effective for generating high-quality training data. We leave learning-based reward functions for future work. Our objective will then be to optimize the parameters of the actor and critic, $\theta_{a},\theta_{c}$ , so that the responses produced by these agents at each timestep $t$ , namely $z^{(t)}$ , maximize $r(z^{(t)},x,y)$ . That is, we optimize the actor and the critic so that at each timestep $t$ , they give a response $z^{(t)}$ which has a high probability of leading the deliberation to converge to the correct answer at time $T$ . To optimize the objective in Eq. 1, we will utilize preference optimization, a standard technique in LLM training. Using the iterative maximization scheme described above, we first have to gather pairwise preference data for both the actor and the critic. In the following sections, we first detail our process for generating this preference data before delving into the optimization procedure. Data: Actor and critic: $\theta_{a},\theta_{c}$ , Distribution of tasks $\mathcal{D}$ , Reward threshold $\varepsilon$ Result: A dataset of trajectories $D$ $D\leftarrow\emptyset$ /* Set of trajectories to use */ for $(x,y)\sim\mathcal{D}$ do $\mathbf{z}^{(0)}\leftarrow$ OneDeliberationRound $(x)$ /* actor and critic responses, i.e. $\mathbf{z}=\langle z_{a}^{(0)},z_{c}^{(0)}\rangle$ */ for $t$ in $[1,T]$ do $\mathbf{z}^{(t)}\leftarrow$ OneDeliberationRound $(x,\mathbf{z}^{(t-1)})$ /* updated natural responses*/ /* guided-deliberation towards, and away from, correct answer $y$ */ $\mathbf{z}_{+}^{(t)}\leftarrow$ OneGuidedDeliberationRound $(x,\mathbf{z}^{(t-1)},y)$ $\mathbf{z}_{-}^{(t)}\leftarrow$ OneGuidedDeliberationRound $(x,\mathbf{z}^{(t-1)},!y)$ /* Estimate final round accuracy if deliberation continue from response $z^{(t)}$ , i.e. $r(z^{(t)},x,y),~{}r(z_{+}^{(t)},x,y),~{}r(z_{-}^{(t)},x,y)$ */ $v\leftarrow$ EstimateFinalAccuracy $(\mathbf{z}^{t})$ $v_{+}\leftarrow$ EstimateFinalAccuracy $(\mathbf{z}_{+}^{t})$ $v_{-}\leftarrow$ EstimateFinalAccuracy $(\mathbf{z}_{-}^{t})$ /* Compute the expected improvement for each trajectory */ /* Save trajectory pairs that result in sufficient accuracy improvement */ if $v_{+}-v\geq\varepsilon$ then $D$ .add $\big{(}\text{pos=}\mathbf{z}_{+}^{(t)},\text{neg=}\mathbf{z}^{(t)}\big{)}$ end if else if $v-v_{-}\geq\varepsilon$ then $D$ .add $\big{(}\text{pos=}\mathbf{z}^{(t)},\text{neg=}\mathbf{z}_{-}^{(t)}\big{)}$ end if end for end for Algorithm 1 Trajectory generation and selection ### 4.3 Off-Policy Trajectory Generation In this section, we describe how to generate the preference data needed to optimize the objective in Eq. 1. The classification of a sample as positive or negative is determined by the deliberation trajectory it follows. Specifically, a positive sample for training the actor corresponds to a trajectory likely to lead to the correct answer at round $T$ , while a negative sample corresponds to one that leads to an incorrect answer at round $T$ . Intuitively, we aim to push the actor agent to generate responses that lead to correct answers while reducing responses that are unlikely to do so, thus optimizing for Eq. 3. The same principle applies to the critic when optimizing Eq. 2. With this intuition in mind, we now describe how such data is generated. A deliberation trajectory can be defined as a sequence of responses $\langle z_{a}^{(0)},z_{c}^{(0)},z_{a}^{(1)},z_{c}^{(1)},\ldots,z_{a}^{(T)},z_{ c}^{(T)}\rangle$ for a given task $x$ . A straightforward way to generate preference data would be to generate multiple rollouts at each round and select the trajectories with the highest $r(z^{(t)},x,y)$ as positive samples and those with the lowest $r(z^{(t)},x,y)$ as negative samples. This approach could enforce the desired behavior for both the actor and the critic if enough samples are collected. However, this approach is not without its limitations. In particular, if the agent performs poorly on a given dataset, it may be difficult to collect enough positive samples, resulting in low training signals. Additionally, even if the agent performs adequately, generating sufficient responses for both the actor and critic requires significant computational resources, especially to ensure that high $r(z^{(t)},x,y)$ values are used for positive samples and low values for negative samples. ### 4.4 Guided Collaborative Trajectories To address these limitations and improve efficiency, we propose Guided-Collaborative Trajectories, which steer the deliberation procedure in two opposing directions: one towards, and another away from, the correct. By comparing these guided trajectories with the natural deliberation trajectory, we can assess the relative goodness of each trajectory using an estimation of the reward structure $r$ . Specifically, for task $x$ with answer $y$ , let $\mathbf{z}^{(t-1)}=(z_{a}^{(t-1)},z_{c}^{(t-1)})$ be the agents’ responses at time $t-1$ . Let $(z_{a}^{(t)},z_{c}^{(t)})$ be the agents’ natural responses (i.e., without guidance), let $(z_{y,a}^{(t)},z_{y,c}^{(t)})$ and $(z_{!y,a}^{(t)},z_{!y,c}^{(t)})$ be the agents responses when guided towards, and away from, supporting answer $y$ respectively. Thus, each guided response is an off-policy generation. In practice, we want guided responses to be different enough from natural responses so that learning the guided responses results in consequential changes to the agent, but not so different that they are challenging to learn; we find that prompt modification is an effective tool for striking this balance. To guide the generations of $(z_{y,a}^{(t)},z_{y,c}^{(t)})$ and $(z_{!y,a}^{(t)},z_{!y,c}^{(t)})$ , we will simply provide a correct and wrong target answer in the prompt, respectively - see “Guided Collaborative Trajectory Prompts” in Section C for further details. For each guided response, we consider how influential this response was in altering the accuracy of the final response, i.e., in the case of the actor, we define | | $\displaystyle\Delta_{y}=r(z_{y,a}^{(t)},x,y)-r(z_{a}^{(t)},x,y)\qquad\text{and }\qquad\Delta_{!y}=r(z_{a}^{(t)},x,y)-r(z_{!y,a}^{(t)},x,y)$ | | | --- | --- | --- | The terms $\Delta_{y}$ and $\Delta_{!y}$ give the expected accuracy difference if at round $t$ the actor had given response $z_{y,a}^{(t)}$ (or $z_{!y,a}^{(t)}$ ) instead of response $z_{a}^{(t)}$ . Large $\Delta_{y}$ indicates that a one-response difference during the deliberation was sufficient to push the procedure toward the correct answer. Such responses would be desirable for the agent to learn. On the other hand, large values of $\Delta_{!y}$ indicate that a one-response difference easily causes the agents to converge to the incorrect answer; this indicates that the deliberation procedure is particularly fragile at timestep $t$ . With these observations in hand, we use $\Delta_{y}$ and $\Delta_{!y}$ to define positive an negative examples, in particular for a threshold $\varepsilon$ , $$ \displaystyle(z_{+}^{(t)},z_{-}^{(t)})=\begin{cases}(z_{y}^{(t)},z^{(t)})& \text{if}\quad\varepsilon\leq\Delta_{y}=r(z_{y,a}^{(t)},x,y)-r(z_{a}^{(t)},x,y )\\ (z^{(t)},z_{!y}^{(t)})&\text{if}\quad\varepsilon\leq\Delta_{!y}=r(z_{a}^{(t)}, x,y)-r(z_{!y,a}^{(t)},x,y)\end{cases} \tag{5} $$ if neither value is above the threshold, then the example is thrown out. **Remark 1** *Under Eq. 5, a positive example $z_{+}^{(t)}$ can be interpreted as a guided response $z_{y}^{(t)}$ which increased the probability of deliberation converging to the correct answer by at least $\varepsilon$ , when compared with the natural response $z^{(t)}$ . Similarly, a negative example $z_{-}^{(t)}$ is a guided response $z_{y!}^{(t)}$ which decreased the probability of deliberation converging to the answer by at least $\varepsilon$ .* Now that we have a procedure for generating high-quality training examples consisting of positive and negative pairs, we next discuss how to use those positive and negative pairs to train both agents. ### 4.5 Learning on Guided Trajectories In order to optimize each objective (Eq. 2 and 3), we use standard preference optimization Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) Rafailov et al. (2024). We choose DPO for its efficiency, but any preference optimization scheme could be used (see section B of the supplement for details on how other preference optimization schemes may be incorporated). Hence, given a preference dataset of positive and negative examples for both the actor and critic agent, of the from $z_{-}^{(t)},z_{+}^{(t)}$ , the DPO loss is defined as, $$ \displaystyle\mathcal{L}_{\text{DPO}}=\sum_{t=0}^{T}\mathbb{E}_{(x,y,z_{-}^{(t )},z_{+}^{(t)})\sim D}\bigg{[}\log\sigma\bigg{(}\frac{\pi_{\theta}\big{(}z_{+} ^{(t)}|x,\mathbf{z}^{(t-1)}\big{)}}{\pi_{\text{ref}}\big{(}z_{+}^{(t)}|x, \mathbf{z}^{(t-1)}\big{)}}-\frac{\pi_{\theta}\big{(}z_{-}^{(t)}|x,\mathbf{z}^{ (t-1)}\big{)}}{\pi_{\text{ref}}\big{(}z_{-}^{(t)}|x,\mathbf{z}^{(t-1)}\big{)}} \bigg{)}\bigg{]} \tag{6} $$ Where $\pi_{\theta}$ is the policy induced by parameters $\theta_{a}$ or $\theta_{c}$ and $\mathbf{z}^{(t-1)}$ are the agent’s responses at the previous round (i.e., the responses prior to giving either response $z_{-}^{(t)}$ or $z_{+}^{(t)}$ ). **Remark 2** *Recall, given our generated preference data, this loss implicitly optimizes the reward $r(z^{t},x,y)$ which itself is equivalent to final accuracy (i.e., the quantity being maximized by Eq. 1). By summing across all rounds, we implicitly maximize the probability that each round $t$ yields a response $z^{t}$ which causes deliberation to converge to the correct answer at time $T$ .* ## 5 Experiments #### Benchmarks To evaluate the efficacy of ACC-Collab we make use of 5 standard benchmark tasks: BoolQ Clark et al. (2019) ${\sim}$ 12k yes-no reading comprehension questions, MMLU Hendrycks et al. (2020) ${\sim}$ 15k multiple choice questions covering a wide array of subjects and difficulty, BBH Suzgun et al. (2022) ${\sim}$ 5k mixed-type questions SCIQ Welbl et al. (2017) ${\sim}$ 13k multiple-choice science questions, ARC Chollet (2019) ${\sim}$ 7k multiple-choice reasoning-based questions. #### Baselines We compare ACC-Collab to several multi-agent and single-agent baselines. For inference-based methods, we compare to Society of Minds SoM Du et al. (2023), Persona Chan et al. (2023). For training-based methods, we compare to supervised fine-tuning SFT Radford (2018), DebateTune Li et al. (2024b), DebateGPT Subramaniam et al. (2024). We use three different base models: Llama-3-8B-Instruct Llama-3 Dubey et al. (2024), Mistral-7B-Instruct Mistral Jiang et al. (2023), and Gemma-2-2B-Instruct Gemma-2 Team et al. (2024). ### 5.1 ACC-Collab Performance #### Final Answer Accuracy We begin by examining the performance of our method ACC-Collab (a single round of training) and ACC-Collab+ (two rounds of training) In table 1, we see the average accuracy of each method after five rounds of deliberation. Our method attains superior performance compared with baseline methods in most cases. The high efficacy of ACC-Collab relative to the baselines indicates that in most cases, only a single round of training is necessary to produce a high-quality collaborative team. It is worth noting that in some cases, further training rounds may decrease performance (i.e., ACC-Collab+ can have worse performance than ACC-Collab). Hence, we have a hold-out set of tasks to determine whether further training degrades performance. #### Process Accuracy In addition to measuring the correctness of the actor’s final answer (i.e., outcome accuracy), we also analyze the correctness of the team’s reasoning and discussion steps (i.e., process accuracy). Since ground truth is not available for reasoning and discussion steps, we use GPT-4o as an oracle to evaluate whether the agents follow the correct steps to reach the final answer. We provide an outline of the experimental setup and full results in Section A.1 of the supplement. We find that our method improves or maintains the process accuracy of the actor and critic. Llama-3 (Ours) (Ours) SoM (2x) SoM (4x) Persona DebateTune SFT DebateGPT ACC-Collab ACC-Collab+ BoolQ $.812_{\pm.01}$ $.811_{\pm.007}$ $.781_{\pm.002}$ $.775_{\pm.033}$ $.798_{\pm.006}$ $.815_{\pm.005}$ $.887_{\pm.005}$ $\mathbf{.894}_{\pm.003}$ MMLU $.62_{\pm.004}$ $.635_{\pm.004}$ $.639_{\pm.004}$ $.63_{\pm.004}$ $.642_{\pm.005}$ $.654_{\pm.005}$ $.644_{\pm.01}$ $\mathbf{.683}_{\pm.012}$ BBH $.508_{\pm.003}$ $.514_{\pm.005}$ $.509_{\pm.013}$ $.508_{\pm.005}$ $.552_{\pm.006}$ $.551_{\pm.008}$ $\mathbf{.593}_{\pm.006}$ $.574_{\pm.003}$ SCIQ $.925_{\pm.002}$ $.923_{\pm.002}$ $.925_{\pm.004}$ $.924_{\pm.004}$ $.925_{\pm.003}$ $.932_{\pm.001}$ $\mathbf{.952}_{\pm.0}$ $.948_{\pm.003}$ ARC $.874_{\pm.001}$ $.874_{\pm.001}$ $.87_{\pm.003}$ $.871_{\pm.002}$ $.879_{\pm.004}$ $.876_{\pm.002}$ $\mathbf{.881}_{\pm.004}$ $.869_{\pm.002}$ Mistral (Ours) (Ours) SoM (2x) SoM (4x) Persona DebateTune SFT DebateGPT ACC-Collab ACC-Collab+ BoolQ $.801_{\pm.005}$ $.798_{\pm.004}$ $.831_{\pm.003}$ $.83_{\pm.003}$ $.84_{\pm.003}$ $.848_{\pm.002}$ $.877_{\pm.002}$ $\mathbf{.893}_{\pm.002}$ MMLU $.57_{\pm.003}$ $.562_{\pm.005}$ $.574_{\pm.002}$ $.562_{\pm.005}$ $.594_{\pm.004}$ $.577_{\pm.002}$ $.61_{\pm.005}$ $\mathbf{.672}_{\pm.004}$ BBH $.428_{\pm.002}$ $.462_{\pm.003}$ $.465_{\pm.011}$ $.456_{\pm.005}$ $.439_{\pm.006}$ $.48_{\pm.012}$ $.519_{\pm.009}$ $\mathbf{.601}_{\pm.004}$ SCIQ $.856_{\pm.002}$ $.856_{\pm.002}$ $.86_{\pm.002}$ $.863_{\pm.003}$ $.858_{\pm.004}$ $.871_{\pm.003}$ $.902_{\pm.005}$ $\mathbf{.905}_{\pm.002}$ ARC $.824_{\pm.001}$ $.823_{\pm.002}$ $.827_{\pm.001}$ $.834_{\pm.0}$ $.825_{\pm.003}$ $.822_{\pm.002}$ $.843_{\pm.003}$ $\mathbf{.856}_{\pm.003}$ Gemma-2 (Ours) (Ours) SoM (2x) SoM (4x) Persona DebateTune SFT DebateGPT ACC-Collab ACC-Collab+ BoolQ $.75_{\pm.011}$ $.759_{\pm.004}$ $.716_{\pm.015}$ $.767_{\pm.003}$ $.783_{\pm.011}$ $.812_{\pm.003}$ $.84_{\pm.005}$ $\mathbf{.845}_{\pm.005}$ MMLU $.58_{\pm.002}$ $.578_{\pm.002}$ $.577_{\pm.002}$ $.578_{\pm.001}$ $.579_{\pm.002}$ $\mathbf{.582}_{\pm.002}$ $.51_{\pm.016}$ $.555_{\pm.003}$ BBH $.454_{\pm.007}$ $.449_{\pm.01}$ $.447_{\pm.006}$ $.447_{\pm.007}$ $.498_{\pm.006}$ $.491_{\pm.01}$ $\mathbf{.513}_{\pm.006}$ $.475_{\pm.008}$ SCIQ $.903_{\pm.002}$ $.903_{\pm.002}$ $.908_{\pm.003}$ $.903_{\pm.001}$ $.913_{\pm.002}$ $.914_{\pm.002}$ $\mathbf{.918}_{\pm.003}$ $.909_{\pm.003}$ ARC $.841_{\pm.003}$ $.843_{\pm.005}$ $.847_{\pm.003}$ $.847_{\pm.003}$ $.848_{\pm.002}$ $.851_{\pm.003}$ $\mathbf{.852}_{\pm.003}$ $.849_{\pm.002}$ Table 1: Average accuracy (with 95% confidence intervals) after $5$ rounds of deliberation. For each dataset, the highest accuracy is shown in bold. ### 5.2 Performance Increase of Multi-Agent Collaboration <details> <summary>extracted/6248978/plots/new_improve.png Details</summary>  ### Visual Description \n ## Bar Chart: Performance Improvement of Different Models with Various Training Methods ### Overview The image presents a comparative bar chart illustrating the percentage improvement achieved by three different language models – Llama-3, Mistral, and Gemma-2 – when trained using various methods. The training methods include SoM (2x and 4x), Persona, DebateTune, SFT, DebateGPT, and ACC-Collab (with and without "Ours"). The y-axis represents the percentage improvement, while the x-axis categorizes the training methods. Each model has its own set of bars representing the improvement for each method. ### Components/Axes * **Y-axis Title:** "% Improvement" with a scale ranging from approximately 2 to 6. * **X-axis:** Categorical, representing different training methods: "SoM (2x)", "SoM (4x)", "Persona", "DebateTune", "SFT", "DebateGPT", "ACC-Collab (Ours)", "ACC-Collab + (Ours)". * **Models:** Three distinct sets of bars, one for each model: Llama-3, Mistral, and Gemma-2. * **Legend:** Located at the bottom of the image, associating colors with each training method. * SoM (2x) - Blue * SoM (4x) - Green * Persona - Purple * DebateTune - Brown * SFT - Dark Green * DebateGPT - Light Green * ACC-Collab (Ours) - Orange (patterned) * ACC-Collab + (Ours) - Red (solid) ### Detailed Analysis **Llama-3:** * SoM (2x): Approximately 4.2% improvement. * SoM (4x): Approximately 2.5% improvement. * Persona: Approximately 3.2% improvement. * DebateTune: Approximately 3.0% improvement. * SFT: Approximately 2.8% improvement. * DebateGPT: Approximately 5.4% improvement. * ACC-Collab (Ours): Approximately 3.1% improvement. * ACC-Collab + (Ours): Approximately 6.4% improvement. **Mistral:** * SoM (2x): Approximately 1.6% improvement. * SoM (4x): Approximately 3.6% improvement. * Persona: Approximately 3.4% improvement. * DebateTune: Approximately 2.2% improvement. * SFT: Approximately 4.2% improvement. * DebateGPT: Approximately 4.8% improvement. * ACC-Collab (Ours): Approximately 2.8% improvement. * ACC-Collab + (Ours): Approximately 5.2% improvement. **Gemma-2:** * SoM (2x): Approximately 2.5% improvement. * SoM (4x): Approximately 3.2% improvement. * Persona: Approximately 2.8% improvement. * DebateTune: Approximately 3.0% improvement. * SFT: Approximately 3.1% improvement. * DebateGPT: Approximately 2.6% improvement. * ACC-Collab (Ours): Approximately 2.7% improvement. * ACC-Collab + (Ours): Approximately 6.2% improvement. ### Key Observations * Across all models, "ACC-Collab + (Ours)" consistently yields the highest percentage improvement. * "DebateGPT" generally provides a significant improvement compared to other methods, especially for Llama-3 and Mistral. * "SoM (2x)" often outperforms "SoM (4x)", which is counterintuitive and may warrant further investigation. * Mistral shows the lowest overall improvement across most methods compared to Llama-3 and Gemma-2. ### Interpretation The data suggests that the "ACC-Collab + (Ours)" training method is the most effective for enhancing the performance of all three language models. The consistent high improvement across Llama-3, Mistral, and Gemma-2 indicates a robust and generalizable benefit from this approach. The strong performance of "DebateGPT" suggests that incorporating debate-style training can significantly improve model capabilities. The unexpected result of "SoM (2x)" outperforming "SoM (4x)" could be due to overfitting with the larger sample size or other factors related to the specific implementation of SoM. The relatively lower improvement observed with Mistral might indicate that this model is already performing well or that it requires different training strategies to achieve substantial gains. The chart provides valuable insights into the effectiveness of different training methods and can guide future research and development efforts in language model optimization. </details> Figure 2: Percent improvement in accuracy after five rounds of deliberation, compared to a single round. Percent improvement (Eq. 7) for each method is averaged across all five datasets. #### Average Improvement As noted in Du et al. (2023), the key mechanism behind the success of multi-agent deliberation (or any of its many variants) is that discussion over multiple rounds allows the models to iteratively refine their answers. Thus, a natural question for any iterative multi-agent method is: how much does accuracy improve from the initial round $t=0$ to the final round $t=T$ ? Where $T=4$ in our experiments. To measure this, we look at the percent improvement in model accuracy from round $t=0$ to round $t=4$ calculated as, $$ \displaystyle\frac{\text{acc}_{4}-\text{acc}_{0}}{\text{acc}_{0}}\qquad\text{ where acc${}_{t}$ is accuracy at round $t$} \tag{7} $$ In Figure 2 we see the average percent improvement for each method, averaged across all 5 datasets. For each of the three base models, ACC-Collab+ has the highest average improvement compared to all other methods. Additionally, the improvement gained by methods such as SoM, SFT or DebateGPT is far less stable than that of ACC-Collab+. In particular, for Mistral, SoM yields nearly no improvement, similarly SFT and DebateGPT offer little improvement when applied to of Llama-3. <details> <summary>extracted/6248978/plots/new_perRoundConf.png Details</summary>  ### Visual Description ## Line Chart: Accuracy vs. Round for Different Models and Training Methods ### Overview This image presents three line charts, each displaying the accuracy of different language models (Llama-3, Mistral, and Gemma-2) across four rounds of evaluation. Each chart compares the performance of several training methods: SoM (2x and 4x), Persona, DebateGPT, SFT, DebateTune, and ACC-Collab (Ours) with and without a plus sign. The y-axis represents accuracy, and the x-axis represents the round number. ### Components/Axes * **X-axis:** Round (0, 1, 2, 3, 4) * **Y-axis:** Accuracy (ranging approximately from 0.70 to 0.90) * **Models (Charts):** Llama-3, Mistral, Gemma-2 * **Training Methods (Legend):** * SoM (2x) - Dashed Blue Line * SoM (4x) - Dashed Purple Line * Persona - Solid Blue Line * DebateGPT - Solid Green Line * SFT - Solid Orange Line * DebateTune - Solid Purple Line * ACC-Collab (Ours) - Solid Orange Line with Marker * ACC-Collab + (Ours) - Solid Magenta Line with Marker ### Detailed Analysis or Content Details **Llama-3 Chart:** * **ACC-Collab (Ours):** Starts at approximately 0.89 accuracy, dips slightly to around 0.87 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.87-0.88 for rounds 2-4. * **ACC-Collab + (Ours):** Starts at approximately 0.87 accuracy, increases to around 0.88 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.88-0.89 for rounds 2-4. * **SoM (2x):** Starts at approximately 0.77 accuracy, increases to around 0.81 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.81-0.82 for rounds 2-4. * **SoM (4x):** Starts at approximately 0.78 accuracy, increases to around 0.82 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.82-0.83 for rounds 2-4. * **Persona:** Starts at approximately 0.78 accuracy, increases to around 0.81 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.81-0.82 for rounds 2-4. * **DebateGPT:** Starts at approximately 0.83 accuracy, remains relatively stable around 0.83-0.84 for rounds 1-4. * **SFT:** Starts at approximately 0.84 accuracy, remains relatively stable around 0.84-0.85 for rounds 1-4. * **DebateTune:** Starts at approximately 0.82 accuracy, increases to around 0.84 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.84-0.85 for rounds 2-4. **Mistral Chart:** * **ACC-Collab (Ours):** Starts at approximately 0.87 accuracy, increases to around 0.89 at round 1, then decreases to around 0.87 at round 4. * **ACC-Collab + (Ours):** Starts at approximately 0.86 accuracy, increases to around 0.88 at round 1, then decreases to around 0.86 at round 4. * **SoM (2x):** Starts at approximately 0.80 accuracy, increases to around 0.83 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.83-0.84 for rounds 2-4. * **SoM (4x):** Starts at approximately 0.81 accuracy, increases to around 0.84 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.84-0.85 for rounds 2-4. * **Persona:** Starts at approximately 0.81 accuracy, increases to around 0.83 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.83-0.84 for rounds 2-4. * **DebateGPT:** Starts at approximately 0.84 accuracy, remains relatively stable around 0.84-0.85 for rounds 1-4. * **SFT:** Starts at approximately 0.85 accuracy, remains relatively stable around 0.85-0.86 for rounds 1-4. * **DebateTune:** Starts at approximately 0.83 accuracy, increases to around 0.85 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.85-0.86 for rounds 2-4. **Gemma-2 Chart:** * **ACC-Collab (Ours):** Starts at approximately 0.81 accuracy, increases to around 0.84 at round 1, then decreases to around 0.82 at round 4. * **ACC-Collab + (Ours):** Starts at approximately 0.80 accuracy, increases to around 0.83 at round 1, then decreases to around 0.81 at round 4. * **SoM (2x):** Starts at approximately 0.73 accuracy, increases to around 0.76 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.76-0.77 for rounds 2-4. * **SoM (4x):** Starts at approximately 0.74 accuracy, increases to around 0.77 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.77-0.78 for rounds 2-4. * **Persona:** Starts at approximately 0.74 accuracy, increases to around 0.77 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.77-0.78 for rounds 2-4. * **DebateGPT:** Starts at approximately 0.78 accuracy, remains relatively stable around 0.78-0.79 for rounds 1-4. * **SFT:** Starts at approximately 0.79 accuracy, remains relatively stable around 0.79-0.80 for rounds 1-4. * **DebateTune:** Starts at approximately 0.77 accuracy, increases to around 0.79 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.79-0.80 for rounds 2-4. ### Key Observations * ACC-Collab (Ours) consistently achieves the highest accuracy across all three models, although it shows a slight decrease in accuracy in later rounds for Mistral and Gemma-2. * SoM (2x) and SoM (4x) generally have the lowest accuracy compared to other training methods. * DebateGPT and SFT show relatively stable performance across all rounds. * The addition of "+" to ACC-Collab generally results in slightly higher accuracy, but the difference is minimal. ### Interpretation The data suggests that the "ACC-Collab (Ours)" training method is the most effective for improving the accuracy of Llama-3, Mistral, and Gemma-2 models. The consistent high performance of this method indicates its robustness and potential for generalization. The slight decrease in accuracy in later rounds for Mistral and Gemma-2 could be due to overfitting or the need for further fine-tuning. The relatively low performance of SoM methods suggests that they may not be as effective for these models or require more extensive training. The stability of DebateGPT and SFT indicates their consistent performance, but they do not reach the same level of accuracy as ACC-Collab. The minimal difference between ACC-Collab and ACC-Collab + suggests that the additional component in the latter may not provide a significant improvement in accuracy. Overall, the data highlights the importance of choosing the right training method to maximize the performance of language models. </details> <details> <summary>extracted/6248978/plots/new_perRoundSCIQ.png Details</summary>  ### Visual Description \n ## Line Chart: Accuracy vs. Round for Different Models and Training Methods ### Overview The image presents three line charts, each displaying the accuracy of different language models (Llama-3, Mistral, and Gemma-2) across four rounds of evaluation. Each chart includes multiple lines representing different training methods or configurations applied to the respective model. The y-axis represents accuracy, and the x-axis represents the round number. ### Components/Axes * **X-axis:** "Round" with values 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4. * **Y-axis:** "Accuracy" with a scale ranging from approximately 0.84 to 0.95. * **Models (Charts):** Llama-3, Mistral, Gemma-2. * **Training Methods/Configurations (Legend):** * SoM (2x) - Dashed dark blue line * SoM (4x) - Dashed purple line * Persona - Solid purple line * DebateTune - Solid green line * SFT - Solid light green line * DebateGPT - Solid dark green line * ACC-Collab (Ours) - Solid orange line * ACC-Collab + (Ours) - Dashed orange line ### Detailed Analysis or Content Details **Llama-3 Chart:** * **ACC-Collab (Ours):** Starts at approximately 0.945 accuracy at round 0, increases slightly to around 0.947 at round 1, then decreases to approximately 0.943 at round 4. * **ACC-Collab + (Ours):** Starts at approximately 0.925 accuracy at round 0, increases to around 0.935 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.932-0.934 for rounds 2-4. * **SoM (2x):** Starts at approximately 0.922 accuracy at round 0, increases to around 0.926 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.924-0.927 for rounds 2-4. * **SoM (4x):** Starts at approximately 0.918 accuracy at round 0, increases to around 0.922 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.920-0.923 for rounds 2-4. * **Persona:** Starts at approximately 0.920 accuracy at round 0, increases to around 0.924 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.922-0.925 for rounds 2-4. * **DebateTune:** Starts at approximately 0.924 accuracy at round 0, increases to around 0.928 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.926-0.929 for rounds 2-4. * **SFT:** Starts at approximately 0.922 accuracy at round 0, increases to around 0.926 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.924-0.927 for rounds 2-4. * **DebateGPT:** Starts at approximately 0.920 accuracy at round 0, increases to around 0.924 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.922-0.925 for rounds 2-4. **Mistral Chart:** * **ACC-Collab (Ours):** Starts at approximately 0.885 accuracy at round 0, increases to around 0.90 at round 1, then decreases to approximately 0.895 at round 4. * **ACC-Collab + (Ours):** Starts at approximately 0.855 accuracy at round 0, increases to around 0.87 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.865-0.875 for rounds 2-4. * **SoM (2x):** Starts at approximately 0.850 accuracy at round 0, increases to around 0.860 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.855-0.865 for rounds 2-4. * **SoM (4x):** Starts at approximately 0.840 accuracy at round 0, increases to around 0.850 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.845-0.855 for rounds 2-4. * **Persona:** Starts at approximately 0.845 accuracy at round 0, increases to around 0.855 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.850-0.855 for rounds 2-4. * **DebateTune:** Starts at approximately 0.855 accuracy at round 0, increases to around 0.865 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.860-0.865 for rounds 2-4. * **SFT:** Starts at approximately 0.850 accuracy at round 0, increases to around 0.860 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.855-0.865 for rounds 2-4. * **DebateGPT:** Starts at approximately 0.845 accuracy at round 0, increases to around 0.855 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.850-0.855 for rounds 2-4. **Gemma-2 Chart:** * **ACC-Collab (Ours):** Starts at approximately 0.915 accuracy at round 0, decreases to around 0.910 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.912-0.915 for rounds 2-4. * **ACC-Collab + (Ours):** Starts at approximately 0.895 accuracy at round 0, increases to around 0.905 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.900-0.905 for rounds 2-4. * **SoM (2x):** Starts at approximately 0.890 accuracy at round 0, increases to around 0.900 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.895-0.900 for rounds 2-4. * **SoM (4x):** Starts at approximately 0.885 accuracy at round 0, increases to around 0.895 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.890-0.895 for rounds 2-4. * **Persona:** Starts at approximately 0.890 accuracy at round 0, increases to around 0.900 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.895-0.900 for rounds 2-4. * **DebateTune:** Starts at approximately 0.895 accuracy at round 0, increases to around 0.905 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.900-0.905 for rounds 2-4. * **SFT:** Starts at approximately 0.890 accuracy at round 0, increases to around 0.900 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.895-0.900 for rounds 2-4. * **DebateGPT:** Starts at approximately 0.885 accuracy at round 0, increases to around 0.895 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.890-0.895 for rounds 2-4. ### Key Observations * "ACC-Collab (Ours)" generally achieves the highest accuracy across all three models, especially in the Llama-3 chart. * The "ACC-Collab + (Ours)" method consistently performs better than the base "ACC-Collab (Ours)" method in the Mistral and Gemma-2 charts. * The accuracy of most methods tends to plateau after round 1, with minimal changes observed in subsequent rounds. * Mistral consistently shows lower overall accuracy compared to Llama-3 and Gemma-2. ### Interpretation The charts demonstrate the effectiveness of the "ACC-Collab" training method, particularly when combined with the "+" variant, in improving the accuracy of language models. The plateauing accuracy after round 1 suggests that the models may be reaching a point of diminishing returns with further training using these methods. The lower accuracy observed for Mistral could indicate that this model requires different training strategies or is inherently less performant on the specific task being evaluated. The consistent performance of SoM, Persona, DebateTune, SFT, and DebateGPT suggests they provide a stable baseline, but do not reach the performance levels of the ACC-Collab methods. The differences in performance across models highlight the importance of tailoring training methods to the specific characteristics of each model. </details> Figure 3: Accuracy over five rounds of deliberation on BoolQ (top) and SCIQ (bottom). #### Per-Round Accuracy Next, we look more closely at the accuracy of each method across five rounds of deliberation. Figure 3, shows per-round accuracy on the BoolQ dataset. As already illustrated by Table 1, ACC-Collab and ACC-Collab+ achieve higher final round accuracy than the other methods. Notably, our method has higher accuracy both at the final round $t=4$ and at round $t=0$ . Recall that at round $t=0$ , the actor’s response is independent of the critic. This indicates that in some cases, our training pipeline can produce actor agents with superior zero-shot accuracy (without deliberation) compared to models produced by SFT and DebateGPT. Interestingly, we observe that in some cases, SFT and DebateGPT are not much better than simple deliberation with untrained models (i.e., SoM-4x), e.g., BoolQ with Llama-3. This is primarily due to the fact that these methods are designed to improve the model’s single-short performance but do little to improve their collaborative abilities. Cases such as this outline the necessity of training to improve collaboration (ACC-Collab) rather than training for raw accuracy (SFT and DebateGPT). ### 5.3 Individual Performance Next, we examine the relative effectiveness of both the actor and the critic. To do this, we train an actor and critic via ACC-Collab. Then, during deliberation, we pair the trained actor with an untrained critic and pair the trained critic with an untrained actor. In Table 2, column “Actor” corresponds to the former, while “Critic” corresponds to the latter. On average, the trained actor attains higher accuracy compared to the trained critic, this aligns with intuition as the actor is responsible for providing answers while the critic plays a supporting role. In most cases, the trained actor (paired with an untrained critic) outperforms SFT and DebateGPT. When the trained actor is paired with a trained critic (either ACC-Collab or ACC-Collab+), its performance is further improved. Llama-3 SoM (4x) DebateGPT Actor Critic ACC-Collab ACC-Collab+ BoolQ $.811_{\pm.007}$ $.815_{\pm.005}$ $.867_{\pm.003}$ $.834_{\pm.005}$ $.887_{\pm.005}$ $\mathbf{.894}_{\pm.003}$ MMLU $.635_{\pm.004}$ $.654_{\pm.005}$ $.651_{\pm.012}$ $.65_{\pm.008}$ $.644_{\pm.01}$ $\mathbf{.683}_{\pm.012}$ BBH $.514_{\pm.005}$ $.551_{\pm.008}$ $.583_{\pm.01}$ $.55_{\pm.015}$ $\mathbf{.593}_{\pm.006}$ $.574_{\pm.003}$ SCIQ $.923_{\pm.002}$ $.932_{\pm.001}$ $.947_{\pm.002}$ $.945_{\pm.001}$ $\mathbf{.952}_{\pm.0}$ $.948_{\pm.003}$ ARC $.874_{\pm.001}$ $.876_{\pm.002}$ $\mathbf{.885}_{\pm.003}$ $.866_{\pm.002}$ $.881_{\pm.004}$ $.869_{\pm.002}$ Mistral SoM (4x) DebateGPT Actor Critic ACC-Collab ACC-Collab+ BoolQ $.798_{\pm.004}$ $.848_{\pm.002}$ $.873_{\pm.002}$ $.843_{\pm.002}$ $.877_{\pm.002}$ $\mathbf{.893}_{\pm.002}$ MMLU $.562_{\pm.005}$ $.577_{\pm.002}$ $.598_{\pm.002}$ $.611_{\pm.001}$ $.61_{\pm.005}$ $\mathbf{.672}_{\pm.004}$ BBH $.462_{\pm.003}$ $.48_{\pm.012}$ $.493_{\pm.012}$ $.518_{\pm.005}$ $.519_{\pm.009}$ $\mathbf{.601}_{\pm.004}$ SCIQ $.856_{\pm.002}$ $.871_{\pm.003}$ $.891_{\pm.001}$ $.891_{\pm.002}$ $.902_{\pm.005}$ $\mathbf{.905}_{\pm.002}$ ARC $.823_{\pm.002}$ $.822_{\pm.002}$ $.833_{\pm.003}$ $.842_{\pm.003}$ $.843_{\pm.003}$ $\mathbf{.856}_{\pm.003}$ Gemma-2 SoM (4x) DebateGPT Actor Critic ACC-Collab ACC-Collab+ BoolQ $.759_{\pm.004}$ $.812_{\pm.003}$ $.839_{\pm.005}$ $.774_{\pm.014}$ $.84_{\pm.005}$ $\mathbf{.845}_{\pm.005}$ MMLU $.578_{\pm.002}$ $\mathbf{.582}_{\pm.002}$ $.519_{\pm.026}$ $.566_{\pm.002}$ $.51_{\pm.016}$ $.555_{\pm.003}$ BBH $.449_{\pm.01}$ $.491_{\pm.01}$ $.51_{\pm.011}$ $.475_{\pm.004}$ $\mathbf{.513}_{\pm.006}$ $.475_{\pm.008}$ SCIQ $.903_{\pm.002}$ $.914_{\pm.002}$ $\mathbf{.923}_{\pm.002}$ $.912_{\pm.001}$ $.918_{\pm.003}$ $.909_{\pm.003}$ ARC $.843_{\pm.005}$ $.851_{\pm.003}$ $.85_{\pm.002}$ $\mathbf{.855}_{\pm.002}$ $.852_{\pm.003}$ $.849_{\pm.002}$ Table 2: Accuracy after 5 rounds of deliberation. The Actor (Critic) column corresponds to an actor-agent (critic-agent) trained via ACC-Collab and paired with an untrained Critic (Actor) during deliberation. <details> <summary>extracted/6248978/criticResp.png Details</summary>  ### Visual Description \n ## Screenshot: AI Feedback on Answer Selection ### Overview This image is a screenshot depicting a user interface showing feedback from three AI "critics" on a user's answer to a question about plant adaptation in response to declining honey bee populations. The interface visually represents an "Actor" providing an answer, an "Untrained Critic" offering mostly agreeable feedback, and a "Trained Critic" providing a more nuanced and challenging critique. ### Components/Axes The screenshot is divided into three horizontal sections, each representing a different AI critic. Each section contains a robot icon, a label indicating the critic's type (Actor, Untrained Critic, Trained Critic), and a text block containing the critic's feedback. A large red "X" is present in the top-right corner of the "Actor" section. ### Content Details **Actor Section (Top):** * **Label:** "Actor" * **Text:** "With the decline of honey bee populations, plant species that . . . Final Answer: (B) change their flowers so that wind will fertilize them." * **Visual:** A red "X" icon is positioned to the right of the text. **Untrained Critic Section (Middle):** * **Label:** "Untrained Critic" * **Text:** "Your response is mostly correct . . . {continues to agree with the actor}." **Trained Critic Section (Bottom):** * **Label:** "Trained Critic" * **Text:** "While your response is a valid explanation for why option B could be a possible answer, here are two reasons why C is also correct and refutes your response directly: 1. . . .{Counterpoint for why B could be wrong} 2. . . .{Evidence for why C is correct}" ### Key Observations * The "Actor" section is marked with a red "X", indicating an incorrect or suboptimal answer. * The "Untrained Critic" provides positive reinforcement, suggesting a lack of critical evaluation. * The "Trained Critic" offers a more sophisticated critique, identifying a valid alternative answer (C) and providing reasoning to support it. * The text within the "Untrained Critic" and "Trained Critic" sections is truncated, indicated by ellipses ("..."). ### Interpretation This screenshot demonstrates a system designed to provide feedback on answers, potentially in an educational or assessment context. The inclusion of different "critics" with varying levels of sophistication highlights the importance of nuanced evaluation. The "Trained Critic" represents a more effective feedback mechanism, as it not only acknowledges the validity of the initial response but also identifies alternative solutions and provides supporting evidence. The red "X" on the "Actor" section suggests the system is designed to flag incorrect or incomplete answers. The system appears to be testing the ability of AI to provide constructive criticism and identify flaws in reasoning. The truncated text suggests that the full feedback may be longer and more detailed than what is visible in the screenshot. The use of robot icons suggests an automated system. </details> Figure 4: Comparison of responses from the critic model before and after training with ACC-Collab. ### 5.4 What do the Agents Actually Learn? Lastly, we are interested in understanding how ACC-Collab improves the Actor-Critic Team. Figure 4 demonstrates an example of the difference in responses between an untrained critic and a critic trained through ACC-Collab. Although the actor provides a wrong answer, the untrained critic is too agreeable and does not provide substantive feedback for the actor to correct their answer. In contrast, the trained critic is more willing to disagree with the actor and provides more detailed feedback. Largely, we observe that this trend is common; untrained critics are too agreeable and are thus less able to change the actor’s mind, while trained critics are more willing to disagree (see Section C.2 for more examples). When examining the trained actor’s responses, we do not find a notable qualitative change compared to the responses of an untrained actor. However, as shown previously, we do observe a qualitative change in the actor’s responses to become more accurate. ## 6 Conclusion, Limitations and Impact In this paper, we propose ACC-Collab, a novel framework for jointly training a two-agent team (one actor-agent and one critic-agent) to collaboratively solve problems through iterative discussion. To train these agents, we developed an off-policy data generation scheme dubbed “Guided-Collaboration”, which produces high-quality preference data for collaborative models. We found that ACC-Collab outperforms all baselines on a wide array of domains. In particular, even a single round of training for both the actor and critic results in a high-quality team. Of particular note is the effects that ACC-Collab has on the critic model. Without ACC-Collab, the critic model is often too agreeable and lacks verbosity in their responses. In contrast, after training with ACC-Collab, the critic is far more likely to provide detailed disagreements during discussion. However, our framework ACC-Collab also comes with limitations. Firstly, even though ACC-Collab attains superior performance compared to baselines on a wide array of domains, it is important to note that we conduct experiments mainly on question-answering tasks; thus, it remains to be seen whether such a framework would continue to be effective in other types of tasks. Moreover, in our experiments, we train and test models on the same task (partitioning each task into a training and testing set). As such, the generalizability of each actor-critic team to unseen domains is unknown. Our method makes use of the fact that for each question, correct and incorrect answers can be easily established. Secondly, while we provide results for three families of models, these experiments are performed on 2B, 7B, and 8B models. While our method is effective for these sizes (standard in open-source models), it remains to be seen whether this effectiveness will scale to larger models. ### Acknowledgments We would like to thank Li Hang for his valuable insights and guidance during the development of this work. ### Reproducibility Statement Here, we outline the details necessary to reproduce our results. We provide an algorithm for our data generation procedure (Algorithm 1), as well as a description of our training procedure in Section 4.3. Each dataset, baseline method, and base model used are specified at the beginning of Section 5. We provide additional experimental details in Section A. Prompts used for our method can be found in Section C. Lastly, we publicly release the code used for our method. ## References - Abdelnabi et al. (2023) Sahar Abdelnabi, Amr Gomaa, Sarath Sivaprasad, Lea Schönherr, and Mario Fritz. Llm-deliberation: Evaluating llms with interactive multi-agent negotiation games. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.17234, 2023. - Chan et al. (2023) Chi-Min Chan, Weize Chen, Yusheng Su, Jianxuan Yu, Wei Xue, Shanghang Zhang, Jie Fu, and Zhiyuan Liu. Chateval: Towards better llm-based evaluators through multi-agent debate. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.07201, 2023. - Chang (2024a) Edward Y Chang. Evince: Optimizing adversarial llm dialogues via conditional statistics and information theory. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.14575, 2024a. - Chang (2024b) Edward Y Chang. Socrasynth: Multi-llm reasoning with conditional statistics. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.06634, 2024b. - Chen et al. (2023) Justin Chih-Yao Chen, Swarnadeep Saha, and Mohit Bansal. Reconcile: Round-table conference improves reasoning via consensus among diverse llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.13007, 2023. - Chen et al. (2024) Zixiang Chen, Yihe Deng, Huizhuo Yuan, Kaixuan Ji, and Quanquan Gu. Self-play fine-tuning converts weak language models to strong language models, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.01335. - Chollet (2019) François Chollet. On the measure of intelligence. arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.01547, 2019. - Clark et al. (2019) Christopher Clark, Kenton Lee, Ming-Wei Chang, Tom Kwiatkowski, Michael Collins, and Kristina Toutanova. Boolq: Exploring the surprising difficulty of natural yes/no questions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.10044, 2019. - Du et al. (2023) Yilun Du, Shuang Li, Antonio Torralba, Joshua B Tenenbaum, and Igor Mordatch. Improving factuality and reasoning in language models through multiagent debate. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14325, 2023. - Dubey et al. (2024) Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al-Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schelten, Amy Yang, Angela Fan, et al. The llama 3 herd of models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783, 2024. - Feng et al. (2024) Shangbin Feng, Weijia Shi, Yike Wang, Wenxuan Ding, Vidhisha Balachandran, and Yulia Tsvetkov. Don’t hallucinate, abstain: Identifying llm knowledge gaps via multi-llm collaboration. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.00367, 2024. - Fiez et al. (2019) Tanner Fiez, Benjamin Chasnov, and Lillian J Ratliff. Convergence of learning dynamics in stackelberg games. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.01217, 2019. - Hadi et al. (2023) Muhammad Usman Hadi, Rizwan Qureshi, Abbas Shah, Muhammad Irfan, Anas Zafar, Muhammad Bilal Shaikh, Naveed Akhtar, Jia Wu, Seyedali Mirjalili, et al. A survey on large language models: Applications, challenges, limitations, and practical usage. Authorea Preprints, 2023. - Hao et al. (2024) Shibo Hao, Yi Gu, Haotian Luo, Tianyang Liu, Xiyan Shao, Xinyuan Wang, Shuhua Xie, Haodi Ma, Adithya Samavedhi, Qiyue Gao, et al. Llm reasoners: New evaluation, library, and analysis of step-by-step reasoning with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.05221, 2024. - Havrilla et al. (2024) Alex Havrilla, Sharath Raparthy, Christoforus Nalmpantis, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Maksym Zhuravinskyi, Eric Hambro, and Roberta Railneau. Glore: When, where, and how to improve llm reasoning via global and local refinements. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.10963, 2024. - Hendrycks et al. (2020) Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Steven Basart, Andy Zou, Mantas Mazeika, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. Measuring massive multitask language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.03300, 2020. - Hong et al. (2023) Sirui Hong, Xiawu Zheng, Jonathan Chen, Yuheng Cheng, Jinlin Wang, Ceyao Zhang, Zili Wang, Steven Ka Shing Yau, Zijuan Lin, Liyang Zhou, et al. Metagpt: Meta programming for multi-agent collaborative framework. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.00352, 2023. - Huang et al. (2023) Lei Huang, Weijiang Yu, Weitao Ma, Weihong Zhong, Zhangyin Feng, Haotian Wang, Qianglong Chen, Weihua Peng, Xiaocheng Feng, Bing Qin, et al. A survey on hallucination in large language models: Principles, taxonomy, challenges, and open questions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.05232, 2023. - Huang et al. (2024) Yiming Huang, Xiao Liu, Yeyun Gong, Zhibin Gou, Yelong Shen, Nan Duan, and Weizhu Chen. Key-point-driven data synthesis with its enhancement on mathematical reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.02333, 2024. - Irving et al. (2018) Geoffrey Irving, Paul Christiano, and Dario Amodei. Ai safety via debate. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.00899, 2018. - Ji et al. (2023) Ziwei Ji, Tiezheng Yu, Yan Xu, Nayeon Lee, Etsuko Ishii, and Pascale Fung. Towards mitigating llm hallucination via self reflection. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pp. 1827–1843, 2023. - Jiang et al. (2023) Albert Q Jiang, Alexandre Sablayrolles, Arthur Mensch, Chris Bamford, Devendra Singh Chaplot, Diego de las Casas, Florian Bressand, Gianna Lengyel, Guillaume Lample, Lucile Saulnier, et al. Mistral 7b. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06825, 2023. - Jiang et al. (2024) Ziheng Jiang, Haibin Lin, Yinmin Zhong, Qi Huang, Yangrui Chen, Zhi Zhang, Yanghua Peng, Xiang Li, Cong Xie, Shibiao Nong, et al. $\{$ MegaScale $\}$ : Scaling large language model training to more than 10,000 $\{$ GPUs $\}$ . In 21st USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI 24), pp. 745–760, 2024. - Khan et al. (2024) Akbir Khan, John Hughes, Dan Valentine, Laura Ruis, Kshitij Sachan, Ansh Radhakrishnan, Edward Grefenstette, Samuel R Bowman, Tim Rocktäschel, and Ethan Perez. Debating with more persuasive llms leads to more truthful answers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.06782, 2024. - Kwon et al. (2023) Woosuk Kwon, Zhuohan Li, Siyuan Zhuang, Ying Sheng, Lianmin Zheng, Cody Hao Yu, Joseph Gonzalez, Hao Zhang, and Ion Stoica. Efficient memory management for large language model serving with pagedattention. In Proceedings of the 29th Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, pp. 611–626, 2023. - Li et al. (2023a) Guohao Li, Hasan Abed Al Kader Hammoud, Hani Itani, Dmitrii Khizbullin, and Bernard Ghanem. Camel: Communicative agents for” mind” exploration of large scale language model society. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.17760, 2023a. - Li et al. (2023b) Huao Li, Yu Quan Chong, Simon Stepputtis, Joseph Campbell, Dana Hughes, Michael Lewis, and Katia Sycara. Theory of mind for multi-agent collaboration via large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.10701, 2023b. - Li et al. (2024a) Junyou Li, Qin Zhang, Yangbin Yu, Qiang Fu, and Deheng Ye. More agents is all you need. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.05120, 2024a. - Li et al. (2024b) Ming Li, Jiuhai Chen, Lichang Chen, and Tianyi Zhou. Can llms speak for diverse people? tuning llms via debate to generate controllable controversial statements. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.10614, 2024b. - Li et al. (2023c) Ruosen Li, Teerth Patel, and Xinya Du. Prd: Peer rank and discussion improve large language model based evaluations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.02762, 2023c. - Li & Sethi (2017) Tao Li and Suresh P Sethi. A review of dynamic stackelberg game models. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems-B, 22(1):125, 2017. - Li et al. (2023d) Yuan Li, Yixuan Zhang, and Lichao Sun. Metaagents: Simulating interactions of human behaviors for llm-based task-oriented coordination via collaborative generative agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06500, 2023d. - Li et al. (2024c) Yunxuan Li, Yibing Du, Jiageng Zhang, Le Hou, Peter Grabowski, Yeqing Li, and Eugene Ie. Improving multi-agent debate with sparse communication topology. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.11776, 2024c. - Liang et al. (2023) Tian Liang, Zhiwei He, Wenxiang Jiao, Xing Wang, Yan Wang, Rui Wang, Yujiu Yang, Zhaopeng Tu, and Shuming Shi. Encouraging divergent thinking in large language models through multi-agent debate. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.19118, 2023. - Liu et al. (2023) Zijun Liu, Yanzhe Zhang, Peng Li, Yang Liu, and Diyi Yang. Dynamic llm-agent network: An llm-agent collaboration framework with agent team optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.02170, 2023. - Michael et al. (2023) Julian Michael, Salsabila Mahdi, David Rein, Jackson Petty, Julien Dirani, Vishakh Padmakumar, and Samuel R Bowman. Debate helps supervise unreliable experts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.08702, 2023. - Otter et al. (2020) Daniel W Otter, Julian R Medina, and Jugal K Kalita. A survey of the usages of deep learning for natural language processing. IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems, 32(2):604–624, 2020. - Pang et al. (2024a) Richard Yuanzhe Pang, Weizhe Yuan, Kyunghyun Cho, He He, Sainbayar Sukhbaatar, and Jason Weston. Iterative reasoning preference optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.19733, 2024a. - Pang et al. (2024b) Richard Yuanzhe Pang, Weizhe Yuan, Kyunghyun Cho, He He, Sainbayar Sukhbaatar, and Jason Weston. Iterative reasoning preference optimization, 2024b. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.19733. - Pham et al. (2023) Chau Pham, Boyi Liu, Yingxiang Yang, Zhengyu Chen, Tianyi Liu, Jianbo Yuan, Bryan A Plummer, Zhaoran Wang, and Hongxia Yang. Let models speak ciphers: Multiagent debate through embeddings. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06272, 2023. - Radford (2018) Alec Radford. Improving language understanding by generative pre-training. 2018. - Rafailov et al. (2024) Rafael Rafailov, Archit Sharma, Eric Mitchell, Christopher D Manning, Stefano Ermon, and Chelsea Finn. Direct preference optimization: Your language model is secretly a reward model. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024. - Rasal (2024) Sumedh Rasal. Llm harmony: Multi-agent communication for problem solving. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.01312, 2024. - Rawte et al. (2023) Vipula Rawte, Amit Sheth, and Amitava Das. A survey of hallucination in large foundation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.05922, 2023. - Shinn et al. (2023) Noah Shinn, Federico Cassano, Edward Berman, Ashwin Gopinath, Karthik Narasimhan, and Shunyu Yao. Reflexion: Language agents with verbal reinforcement learning, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.11366. - Singhal et al. (2023) Karan Singhal, Tao Tu, Juraj Gottweis, Rory Sayres, Ellery Wulczyn, Le Hou, Kevin Clark, Stephen Pfohl, Heather Cole-Lewis, Darlene Neal, et al. Towards expert-level medical question answering with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.09617, 2023. - (47) Andries Petrus Smit, Nathan Grinsztajn, Paul Duckworth, Thomas D Barrett, and Arnu Pretorius. Should we be going mad? a look at multi-agent debate strategies for llms. In Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning. - Subramaniam et al. (2024) Vighnesh Subramaniam, Antonio Torralba, and Shuang Li. Debategpt: Fine-tuning large language models with multi-agent debate supervision. 2024. - Suzgun et al. (2022) Mirac Suzgun, Nathan Scales, Nathanael Schärli, Sebastian Gehrmann, Yi Tay, Hyung Won Chung, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Quoc V Le, Ed H Chi, Denny Zhou, et al. Challenging big-bench tasks and whether chain-of-thought can solve them. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.09261, 2022. - Team et al. (2024) Gemma Team, Morgane Riviere, Shreya Pathak, Pier Giuseppe Sessa, Cassidy Hardin, Surya Bhupatiraju, Léonard Hussenot, Thomas Mesnard, Bobak Shahriari, Alexandre Ramé, et al. Gemma 2: Improving open language models at a practical size. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.00118, 2024. - Thirunavukarasu et al. (2023) Arun James Thirunavukarasu, Darren Shu Jeng Ting, Kabilan Elangovan, Laura Gutierrez, Ting Fang Tan, and Daniel Shu Wei Ting. Large language models in medicine. Nature medicine, 29(8):1930–1940, 2023. - Tonmoy et al. (2024) SM Tonmoy, SM Zaman, Vinija Jain, Anku Rani, Vipula Rawte, Aman Chadha, and Amitava Das. A comprehensive survey of hallucination mitigation techniques in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.01313, 2024. - Trung et al. (2024) Luong Trung, Xinbo Zhang, Zhanming Jie, Peng Sun, Xiaoran Jin, and Hang Li. Reft: Reasoning with reinforced fine-tuning. Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), 2024. - Wang et al. (2023a) Boshi Wang, Xiang Yue, and Huan Sun. Can chatgpt defend its belief in truth? evaluating llm reasoning via debate. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pp. 11865–11881, 2023a. - Wang et al. (2024) Qineng Wang, Zihao Wang, Ying Su, Hanghang Tong, and Yangqiu Song. Rethinking the bounds of llm reasoning: Are multi-agent discussions the key? arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.18272, 2024. - Wang et al. (2023b) Zhenhailong Wang, Shaoguang Mao, Wenshan Wu, Tao Ge, Furu Wei, and Heng Ji. Unleashing the emergent cognitive synergy in large language models: A task-solving agent through multi-persona self-collaboration. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.05300, 2023b. - Wei et al. (2022) Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, Denny Zhou, et al. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:24824–24837, 2022. - Welbl et al. (2017) Johannes Welbl, Nelson F Liu, and Matt Gardner. Crowdsourcing multiple choice science questions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06209, 2017. - Wu et al. (2023) Qingyun Wu, Gagan Bansal, Jieyu Zhang, Yiran Wu, Shaokun Zhang, Erkang Zhu, Beibin Li, Li Jiang, Xiaoyun Zhang, and Chi Wang. Autogen: Enabling next-gen llm applications via multi-agent conversation framework. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.08155, 2023. - Xiong et al. (2024) Weimin Xiong, Yifan Song, Xiutian Zhao, Wenhao Wu, Xun Wang, Ke Wang, Cheng Li, Wei Peng, and Sujian Li. Watch every step! llm agent learning via iterative step-level process refinement, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.11176. - Yang et al. (2024) Ruixin Yang, Dheeraj Rajagopa, Shirley Anugrah Hayati, Bin Hu, and Dongyeop Kang. Confidence calibration and rationalization for llms via multi-agent deliberation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.09127, 2024. - Zhang et al. (2023) Jintian Zhang, Xin Xu, and Shumin Deng. Exploring collaboration mechanisms for llm agents: A social psychology view. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.02124, 2023. - Zhang et al. (2024) Yadong Zhang, Shaoguang Mao, Tao Ge, Xun Wang, Adrian de Wynter, Yan Xia, Wenshan Wu, Ting Song, Man Lan, and Furu Wei. Llm as a mastermind: A survey of strategic reasoning with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.01230, 2024. - Zhu et al. (2024) Wenhao Zhu, Hongyi Liu, Qingxiu Dong, Jingjing Xu, Shujian Huang, Lingpeng Kong, Jiajun Chen, and Lei Li. Multilingual machine translation with large language models: Empirical results and analysis, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.04675. ## Appendix ## Appendix A Experiments Here, we provide additional details regarding our experiments. #### Datasets Each dataset is split into a training set, a validation set, and a testing set. For datasets that come with an explicit partition of these sets we use the given partitions; this includes BoolQ, MMLU, SCIQ, and ARC. For BBH, we randomly sample roughly 25% and 10% of the questions from each category in BBH to create a test and validation set, respectively; this comes out to 1260 questions for the test set and 500 questions for the validation set. All results are reported on questions in the test set. #### Compute All training was performed on a single Nvidia-H800 GPU. Inference for Llama-3 and Mistral based models is performed on a single Nvidia-v100 GPU, for Gemma-2 based models we used a single Nvidia-H800. All inference is performed with the VLLM library Kwon et al. (2023). #### Training Training for all models was performed via the trl library, using LoRAs of size 256. When training ACC-Collab with DPO we use a negative log-likelihood (NLL) regularization term (with weight $1$ ) as outlined in Pang et al. (2024a). <details> <summary>extracted/6248978/plots/mainMethod_v4.png Details</summary>  ### Visual Description \n ## Diagram: Natural Debate Framework for Training Models ### Overview This diagram illustrates a "Natural Debate" framework for training models, likely reinforcement learning agents, involving an "Actor" and a "Critic" that interact and generate preference data for further model training. The diagram depicts the flow of information and decision-making processes within this framework. ### Components/Axes The diagram consists of the following key components: * **Actor:** Represented by a robot icon, positioned on the left side of the diagram. * **Critic:** Represented by a robot icon, positioned on the left side of the diagram, below the Actor. * **Actor Guided Towards y:** A pathway indicating the Actor's actions directed towards a goal 'y'. * **Actor Guided Away From y:** A pathway indicating the Actor's actions directed away from a goal 'y'. * **Natural Debate:** A central box encompassing the interaction between the Actor and Critic. * **z_a^(t) & z_c^(t):** State representations for the Actor and Critic at time 't'. These appear in multiple locations. * **z_a^(t-1) & z_c^(t-1):** State representations for the Actor and Critic at time 't-1'. * **Δ_y:** Represents the difference or change related to 'y'. * **Δ_ly:** Represents the local difference or change related to 'y'. * **Relative Quality of Trajectory:** A label describing the output of the comparison between Δ_y and a threshold ε. * **Preference Data:** A box containing the tuple (z_a^(t), z_a^(t), z_a^(t), z_a^(t)). * **Train Models:** A section depicting the use of preference data to train the Actor and Critic models. ### Detailed Analysis or Content Details The diagram shows a flow of information as follows: 1. **Actor & Critic States:** The Actor and Critic both have state representations denoted as z_a^(t) and z_c^(t) at time 't', and z_a^(t-1) and z_c^(t-1) at time 't-1'. These states are inputs to the "Natural Debate" process. 2. **Actor Guidance:** The Actor is guided both towards and away from a goal 'y'. This results in two separate pathways. 3. **Natural Debate & Comparison:** Within the "Natural Debate" box, the states are processed to calculate Δ_y and Δ_ly. 4. **Decision Logic:** A conditional statement is present: * **if Δ_y ≥ ε:** This condition leads to the generation of preference data. * **elif Δ_ly ≥ ε:** This condition also leads to the generation of preference data. 5. **Preference Data Generation:** The preference data is represented as a tuple: (z_a^(t), z_a^(t), z_a^(t), z_a^(t)). The exact meaning of this tuple is unclear without further context. 6. **Model Training:** The generated preference data is then used to "Train Models" – specifically, the Actor and Critic models. The diagram shows two separate training pathways, one for the Actor and one for the Critic. ### Key Observations * The diagram emphasizes a comparative learning process where the Actor and Critic evaluate trajectories based on their proximity to a goal 'y'. * The threshold 'ε' plays a crucial role in determining when preference data is generated. * The preference data appears to be based on the states of both the Actor and Critic. * The diagram does not provide specific numerical values or quantitative data. It is a conceptual illustration of a framework. ### Interpretation The diagram illustrates a novel approach to reinforcement learning training, termed "Natural Debate." The core idea is to have an Actor and a Critic engage in a debate about the quality of trajectories. The Critic evaluates the Actor's actions, and the difference (Δ_y or Δ_ly) between the current state and the goal 'y' determines whether preference data is generated. This preference data is then used to refine both the Actor and Critic models. The use of a threshold 'ε' suggests that only significant deviations from the goal trigger the generation of preference data, potentially focusing the learning process on more challenging or informative scenarios. The "Natural Debate" aspect likely refers to the iterative process of the Actor and Critic challenging each other, leading to more robust and effective learning. The tuple representing the preference data is somewhat ambiguous. It could represent a comparison of states, or a ranking of trajectories. Without further context, it's difficult to determine its precise meaning. The diagram is a high-level overview and does not delve into the specific algorithms or implementation details of the "Natural Debate" framework. It serves as a conceptual blueprint for a potentially powerful learning paradigm. </details> <details> <summary>extracted/6248978/plots/mainMethod_critic.png Details</summary>  ### Visual Description ## Diagram: Natural Debate Training Loop ### Overview This diagram illustrates a training loop for reinforcement learning, specifically a "Natural Debate" approach involving an Actor and a Critic. The loop involves generating states, evaluating trajectories, and using preference data to train both the Actor and the Critic models. The diagram depicts the flow of information and data between these components. ### Components/Axes The diagram consists of the following key components: * **Actor (Orange):** Represented by a robot icon, labeled "Actor". * **Critic (Blue):** Represented by a robot icon, labeled "Critic". * **States:** Represented by circles labeled `z_a^(t)` and `z_c^(t)`, with a superscript (t) indicating the time step. There are also states from the previous time step, labeled `z_a^(t-1)` and `z_c^(t-1)`. * **Critic Guidance:** Two directional arrows labeled "Critic Guided Towards y" and "Critic Guided Away From y" indicate the direction of the Critic's influence on the Actor. * **Natural Debate:** A central area labeled "Natural Debate" connects the Actor and Critic. * **Relative Quality of Trajectory:** A diamond-shaped node labeled "Relative Quality of Trajectory". * **Decision Node:** A diamond-shaped node with the conditional statement "if Δy ≥ ε" and "elif Δy ≥ ε". Δy represents a change in a value, and ε represents a threshold. * **Preference Data:** A rectangular node labeled "Preference Data" containing the tuple `(z_c^(t), z_a^(t), z_c^(t), z_c^(t))`. * **Train Models:** A cylinder labeled "Train Models" with two robot icons, one orange (Actor) and one blue (Critic), indicating the models being trained. * **Arrows:** Curved arrows indicate the flow of information and data. ### Detailed Analysis or Content Details The diagram shows the following flow: 1. **Critic and Actor States:** The Critic and Actor each have states at time `t-1` (`z_a^(t-1)`, `z_c^(t-1)`). 2. **Critic Guidance:** The Critic provides guidance to the Actor, either towards or away from a value 'y'. This guidance influences the Actor's state at time `t` (`z_a^(t)`). The Critic also has a state at time `t` (`z_c^(t)`). 3. **Natural Debate:** The states of the Actor and Critic at time `t` (`z_a^(t)`, `z_c^(t)`) are fed into the "Natural Debate" area. 4. **Relative Quality of Trajectory:** The "Natural Debate" process outputs a measure of the "Relative Quality of Trajectory". 5. **Decision Node:** The "Relative Quality of Trajectory" (Δy) is evaluated against a threshold ε. * If Δy ≥ ε, the data flows to the "Preference Data" node. * Else if Δy ≥ ε, the data flows to the "Preference Data" node. (Note: the "elif" condition is identical to the "if" condition, which is likely an error in the diagram). 6. **Preference Data:** The "Preference Data" node contains the tuple `(z_c^(t), z_a^(t), z_c^(t), z_c^(t))`. 7. **Train Models:** The "Preference Data" is used to train both the Actor and Critic models. ### Key Observations * The diagram highlights a closed-loop system where the Critic evaluates the Actor's actions, and this evaluation is used to improve both models. * The conditional statement at the decision node appears redundant, as both conditions are identical. * The tuple in the "Preference Data" node contains repeated elements (`z_c^(t)` appears three times), which may indicate a specific data structure or encoding. * The diagram does not specify the nature of 'y' or the meaning of Δy. ### Interpretation This diagram represents a reinforcement learning framework where an Actor and a Critic engage in a "Natural Debate" to improve their performance. The Critic provides feedback to the Actor, and the resulting trajectories are evaluated to generate preference data. This data is then used to train both models, creating a continuous learning loop. The "Natural Debate" aspect suggests that the Critic's feedback is not simply a reward signal but a more nuanced evaluation of the Actor's actions. The repeated `z_c^(t)` in the preference data might represent the critic's state being used multiple times in the training process, perhaps for regularization or to emphasize the critic's perspective. The identical "if" and "elif" conditions suggest a potential error in the diagram's design, or a specific, but unclear, logic. The diagram is a high-level overview and lacks specific details about the algorithms or parameters used in the training process. </details> Figure 5: ACC-Collab training pipeline, exemplified for the actor (top) and critic (bottom). The process 1) We generate data from both natural deliberation as well as guided deliberation towards and away from the ground truth answer $y$ using the actor and critic. 2) We compute the relative quality of each trajectory based on the expected quality difference $\Delta_{y},\Delta_{!y}$ w.r.t. to the natural response. 3) We store all high-quality pairwise data in our database and train the actor model. 4) We alternate this procedure for the actor and critic. As outline in Section 4 both the guidance procedure and the computation of $\Delta_{y},\Delta_{!y}$ differ between the actor and critic. ### A.1 Correctness of Reasoning Steps In addition to measuring outcome accuracy (i.e., the accuracy of the actor’s final answer), we also measure process accuracy (i.e., the accuracy of the reasoning and discussion steps taken by the actor and the critic model). These results are displayed in Table 3. We observe that our training pipeline typically maintains or increases the accuracy of the reasoning steps. Unlike outcome accuracy, process accuracy does not have ground truth answers. Thus we utilize GPT-4o to serve as an oracle. We use the following steps to evaluate the correctness of the reasoning and discussion steps. 1. For both an untrained actor-critic team and a trained actor-critic team (trained via ACC-Collab), we randomly sample 500 deliberations, which resulted in the correct answer after 5 rounds of deliberation. 1. We then prompted GPT-4o to evaluate the correctness of the reasoning and discussion steps taken by the actor-critic teams in each of the 500 deliberations. 1. We then compute the average accuracy of the reasoning and discussion steps as evaluated by GPT-4o. | Dataset Llama-3 BoolQ | ACC-Collab+ Accuracy $.890_{\pm.035}$ | ACC-Collab Accuracy $.894_{\pm.034}$ | Untrained Accuracy $.794_{\pm.045}$ | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | MMLU | $.968_{\pm.020}$ | $.976_{\pm.017}$ | $.909_{\pm.032}$ | | BBH | $.519_{\pm.064}$ | $.575_{\pm.055}$ | $.610_{\pm.055}$ | | SCIQ | $.958_{\pm.022}$ | $.981_{\pm.015}$ | $.937_{\pm.027}$ | | ARC | $.882_{\pm.046}$ | $.833_{\pm.042}$ | $.883_{\pm.036}$ | | Mistral | | | | | BoolQ | $.907_{\pm.035}$ | $.928_{\pm.029}$ | $.894_{\pm.034}$ | | MMLU | $.882_{\pm.042}$ | $.884_{\pm.036}$ | $.878_{\pm.037}$ | | BBH | $.766_{\pm.045}$ | $.818_{\pm.043}$ | $.538_{\pm.056}$ | | SCIQ | $.973_{\pm.018}$ | $.972_{\pm.018}$ | $.933_{\pm.028}$ | | ARC | $.927_{\pm.029}$ | $.952_{\pm.024}$ | $.852_{\pm.040}$ | | Gemma-2 | | | | | BoolQ | $.869_{\pm.038}$ | $.872_{\pm.037}$ | $.861_{\pm.039}$ | | MMLU | $.844_{\pm.041}$ | $.843_{\pm.041}$ | $.800_{\pm.045}$ | | BBH | $.597_{\pm.056}$ | $.637_{\pm.054}$ | $.514_{\pm.056}$ | | SCIQ | $.984_{\pm.014}$ | $.978_{\pm.016}$ | $.985_{\pm.014}$ | | ARC | $.850_{\pm.040}$ | $.854_{\pm.039}$ | $.834_{\pm.042}$ | Table 3: Accuracy of the actor’s and critic’s reasoning and discussion steps as evaluated by GPT-4o. ## Appendix B Preference Optimization Here, we remark on how other preference optimization schemes can be used in place of DPO. Broadly speaking, preference optimization schemes can broken into two categories: those which optimize reward directly (e.g., PPO) and those which optimize reward indirectly (e.g., DPO). In the case of the latter, the positive and negative pairs produced by our method (Algorithm 1) can be directly plugged into the preference optimizer. In the case of explicit reward maximization, the reward function $r(z^{(t)},x,y)$ can first be learned automatically by simply simulating deliberation. The most straightforward way to do this is to first simulate one full deliberation between the actor and critic, i.e., $\langle(z_{a}^{(0)},z_{c}^{(0)}),\ldots,(z_{a}^{(T)},z_{c}^{(T)})\rangle$ . Then for each $z_{a}^{(t)}$ , $z_{c}^{(t)}$ the remaining $T-t$ deliberation steps can be resampled to estimate the corresponding value of $r(z_{a}^{(t)},x,y)$ and $r(z_{c}^{(t)},x,y)$ . These pairs, namely $\big{(}z_{a}^{(t)},r(z_{a}^{(t)},x,y)\big{)}$ and $\big{(}z_{c}^{(t)},r(z_{c}^{(t)},x,y)\big{)}$ can then be used to learn the reward function. This reward function can then be plugged into the desired preference optimization scheme. <details> <summary>extracted/6248978/plots/new_perRoundConf.png Details</summary>  ### Visual Description ## Line Chart: Accuracy vs. Round for Different Models and Training Methods ### Overview This image presents three line charts, each displaying the accuracy of different language models (Llama-3, Mistral, and Gemma-2) across four rounds of evaluation. Each chart compares the performance of several training methods: SoM (2x and 4x), Persona, DebateGPT, SFT, DebateTune, and ACC-Collab (Ours) with and without a plus sign. The y-axis represents accuracy, and the x-axis represents the round number. ### Components/Axes * **X-axis:** Round (0, 1, 2, 3, 4) * **Y-axis:** Accuracy (ranging approximately from 0.70 to 0.90) * **Models (Charts):** Llama-3, Mistral, Gemma-2 * **Training Methods (Legend):** * SoM (2x) - Dashed Blue Line * SoM (4x) - Dashed Purple Line * Persona - Solid Blue Line * DebateGPT - Solid Green Line * SFT - Solid Orange Line * DebateTune - Solid Purple Line * ACC-Collab (Ours) - Solid Orange Line with Marker * ACC-Collab + (Ours) - Solid Magenta Line with Marker ### Detailed Analysis or Content Details **Llama-3 Chart:** * **ACC-Collab (Ours):** Starts at approximately 0.89 accuracy, dips slightly to around 0.87 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.87-0.88 for rounds 2-4. * **ACC-Collab + (Ours):** Starts at approximately 0.87 accuracy, increases to around 0.88 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.88-0.89 for rounds 2-4. * **SoM (2x):** Starts at approximately 0.77 accuracy, increases to around 0.81 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.81-0.82 for rounds 2-4. * **SoM (4x):** Starts at approximately 0.78 accuracy, increases to around 0.82 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.82-0.83 for rounds 2-4. * **Persona:** Starts at approximately 0.78 accuracy, increases to around 0.81 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.81-0.82 for rounds 2-4. * **DebateGPT:** Starts at approximately 0.83 accuracy, remains relatively stable around 0.83-0.84 for rounds 1-4. * **SFT:** Starts at approximately 0.84 accuracy, remains relatively stable around 0.84-0.85 for rounds 1-4. * **DebateTune:** Starts at approximately 0.82 accuracy, increases to around 0.84 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.84-0.85 for rounds 2-4. **Mistral Chart:** * **ACC-Collab (Ours):** Starts at approximately 0.87 accuracy, increases to around 0.89 at round 1, then decreases to around 0.87 at round 4. * **ACC-Collab + (Ours):** Starts at approximately 0.86 accuracy, increases to around 0.88 at round 1, then decreases to around 0.86 at round 4. * **SoM (2x):** Starts at approximately 0.80 accuracy, increases to around 0.83 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.83-0.84 for rounds 2-4. * **SoM (4x):** Starts at approximately 0.81 accuracy, increases to around 0.84 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.84-0.85 for rounds 2-4. * **Persona:** Starts at approximately 0.81 accuracy, increases to around 0.83 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.83-0.84 for rounds 2-4. * **DebateGPT:** Starts at approximately 0.84 accuracy, remains relatively stable around 0.84-0.85 for rounds 1-4. * **SFT:** Starts at approximately 0.85 accuracy, remains relatively stable around 0.85-0.86 for rounds 1-4. * **DebateTune:** Starts at approximately 0.83 accuracy, increases to around 0.85 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.85-0.86 for rounds 2-4. **Gemma-2 Chart:** * **ACC-Collab (Ours):** Starts at approximately 0.81 accuracy, increases to around 0.84 at round 1, then decreases to around 0.82 at round 4. * **ACC-Collab + (Ours):** Starts at approximately 0.80 accuracy, increases to around 0.83 at round 1, then decreases to around 0.81 at round 4. * **SoM (2x):** Starts at approximately 0.73 accuracy, increases to around 0.76 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.76-0.77 for rounds 2-4. * **SoM (4x):** Starts at approximately 0.74 accuracy, increases to around 0.77 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.77-0.78 for rounds 2-4. * **Persona:** Starts at approximately 0.74 accuracy, increases to around 0.77 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.77-0.78 for rounds 2-4. * **DebateGPT:** Starts at approximately 0.78 accuracy, remains relatively stable around 0.78-0.79 for rounds 1-4. * **SFT:** Starts at approximately 0.79 accuracy, remains relatively stable around 0.79-0.80 for rounds 1-4. * **DebateTune:** Starts at approximately 0.77 accuracy, increases to around 0.79 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.79-0.80 for rounds 2-4. ### Key Observations * ACC-Collab (Ours) consistently achieves the highest accuracy across all three models, although it shows a slight decrease in accuracy in later rounds for Mistral and Gemma-2. * SoM (2x) and SoM (4x) generally have the lowest accuracy compared to other training methods. * DebateGPT and SFT show relatively stable performance across all rounds. * The addition of "+" to ACC-Collab generally results in slightly higher accuracy, but the difference is minimal. ### Interpretation The data suggests that the "ACC-Collab (Ours)" training method is the most effective for improving the accuracy of Llama-3, Mistral, and Gemma-2 models. The consistent high performance of this method indicates its robustness and potential for generalization. The slight decrease in accuracy in later rounds for Mistral and Gemma-2 could be due to overfitting or the need for further fine-tuning. The relatively low performance of SoM methods suggests that they may not be as effective for these models or require more extensive training. The stability of DebateGPT and SFT indicates their consistent performance, but they do not reach the same level of accuracy as ACC-Collab. The minimal difference between ACC-Collab and ACC-Collab + suggests that the additional component in the latter may not provide a significant improvement in accuracy. Overall, the data highlights the importance of choosing the right training method to maximize the performance of language models. </details> Figure 6: Accuracy over five rounds of deliberation on BoolQ. <details> <summary>extracted/6248978/plots/new_perRoundMMLU.png Details</summary>  ### Visual Description \n ## Line Chart: Accuracy vs. Round for Different Models and Training Methods ### Overview This image presents three line charts, each displaying the accuracy of different language models (Llama-3, Mistral, and Gemma-2) across four rounds of evaluation. Each chart shows the performance of various training methods applied to the respective model. The accuracy is plotted on the y-axis, and the round number is on the x-axis. Shaded areas around each line represent confidence intervals. ### Components/Axes * **X-axis:** Round (0, 1, 2, 3, 4) * **Y-axis:** Accuracy (ranging approximately from 0.48 to 0.68) * **Models (Charts):** Llama-3, Mistral, Gemma-2 * **Training Methods (Legend):** * SoM (2x) - Dashed dark blue line * SoM (4x) - Dashed light blue line * Persona - Solid purple line * DebateTune - Solid green line * SFT - Solid orange line * DebateGPT - Solid teal line * ACC-Collab (Ours) - Solid red line * ACC-Collab + (Ours) - Dashed red line * **Legend Position:** Bottom-center of the image, spanning all three charts. ### Detailed Analysis or Content Details **Llama-3 Chart (Left):** * **ACC-Collab (Ours):** Starts at approximately 0.64, increases to around 0.67 at round 1, then fluctuates around 0.67-0.68 for rounds 2-4. * **ACC-Collab + (Ours):** Starts at approximately 0.63, increases to around 0.66 at round 1, then fluctuates around 0.66-0.67 for rounds 2-4. * **SoM (2x):** Starts at approximately 0.62, increases to around 0.64 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.64-0.65 for rounds 2-4. * **SoM (4x):** Starts at approximately 0.61, increases to around 0.63 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.63-0.64 for rounds 2-4. * **Persona:** Starts at approximately 0.63, increases to around 0.65 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.65-0.66 for rounds 2-4. * **DebateTune:** Starts at approximately 0.62, increases to around 0.65 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.65-0.66 for rounds 2-4. * **SFT:** Starts at approximately 0.62, increases to around 0.65 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.65-0.66 for rounds 2-4. * **DebateGPT:** Starts at approximately 0.62, increases to around 0.65 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.65-0.66 for rounds 2-4. **Mistral Chart (Center):** * **ACC-Collab (Ours):** Starts at approximately 0.67, decreases to around 0.66 at round 1, then fluctuates around 0.66-0.67 for rounds 2-4. * **ACC-Collab + (Ours):** Starts at approximately 0.65, increases to around 0.66 at round 1, then fluctuates around 0.66-0.67 for rounds 2-4. * **SoM (2x):** Starts at approximately 0.56, increases to around 0.58 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.58-0.59 for rounds 2-4. * **SoM (4x):** Starts at approximately 0.56, increases to around 0.58 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.58-0.59 for rounds 2-4. * **Persona:** Starts at approximately 0.57, increases to around 0.59 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.59-0.60 for rounds 2-4. * **DebateTune:** Starts at approximately 0.58, increases to around 0.60 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.60-0.61 for rounds 2-4. * **SFT:** Starts at approximately 0.58, increases to around 0.60 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.60-0.61 for rounds 2-4. * **DebateGPT:** Starts at approximately 0.58, increases to around 0.60 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.60-0.61 for rounds 2-4. **Gemma-2 Chart (Right):** * **ACC-Collab (Ours):** Starts at approximately 0.50, increases to around 0.54 at round 1, then fluctuates around 0.55-0.56 for rounds 2-4. * **ACC-Collab + (Ours):** Starts at approximately 0.49, increases to around 0.56 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.56-0.57 for rounds 2-4. * **SoM (2x):** Starts at approximately 0.52, increases to around 0.55 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.55-0.56 for rounds 2-4. * **SoM (4x):** Starts at approximately 0.52, increases to around 0.55 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.55-0.56 for rounds 2-4. * **Persona:** Starts at approximately 0.53, increases to around 0.56 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.56-0.57 for rounds 2-4. * **DebateTune:** Starts at approximately 0.53, increases to around 0.56 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.56-0.57 for rounds 2-4. * **SFT:** Starts at approximately 0.53, increases to around 0.56 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.56-0.57 for rounds 2-4. * **DebateGPT:** Starts at approximately 0.53, increases to around 0.56 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.56-0.57 for rounds 2-4. ### Key Observations * **Llama-3** consistently exhibits the highest accuracy across all training methods and rounds. * **Mistral** shows moderate accuracy, generally lower than Llama-3 but higher than Gemma-2. * **Gemma-2** has the lowest overall accuracy. * For all models, accuracy generally increases from round 0 to round 1, then plateaus or fluctuates slightly in subsequent rounds. * The "ACC-Collab (Ours)" method generally performs well across all models, often achieving the highest accuracy. * The "ACC-Collab + (Ours)" method shows similar performance to "ACC-Collab (Ours)". ### Interpretation The charts demonstrate the effectiveness of different training methods on various language models. Llama-3 appears to be the most capable model, achieving significantly higher accuracy than Mistral and Gemma-2. The "ACC-Collab" training approach consistently yields strong results, suggesting its suitability for improving model performance. The initial accuracy gains observed from round 0 to round 1 indicate that the training process is effective in the early stages, but further rounds yield diminishing returns. The confidence intervals (shaded areas) suggest some variability in the results, but the overall trends are clear. The data suggests that model choice and training method are both crucial factors in achieving high accuracy in language models. The relatively stable performance after round 1 could indicate that the models are approaching their performance limits with the given training data and methods. </details> Figure 7: Accuracy over five rounds of deliberation on MMLU. <details> <summary>extracted/6248978/plots/new_perRoundBBH.png Details</summary>  ### Visual Description ## Line Chart: Accuracy vs. Round for Different Models and Training Methods ### Overview The image presents three line charts, each displaying the accuracy of different language models (Llama-3, Mistral, and Gemma-2) across four rounds of evaluation. Each chart shows the performance of several training methods: SoM (2x and 4x), Persona, DebateTune, SFT, DebateGPT, and ACC-Collab (Ours) and ACC-Collab + (Ours). The y-axis represents accuracy, and the x-axis represents the round number. ### Components/Axes * **X-axis:** "Round" with values 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4. * **Y-axis:** "Accuracy" with a scale ranging from approximately 0.44 to 0.60. * **Models (Charts):** Llama-3, Mistral, Gemma-2. Each model has its own dedicated chart. * **Training Methods (Legend):** * SoM (2x) - Dashed light blue line * SoM (4x) - Dashed dark blue line * Persona - Dashed purple line * DebateTune - Solid yellow line * SFT - Solid dark green line * DebateGPT - Solid light green line * ACC-Collab (Ours) - Solid orange line * ACC-Collab + (Ours) - Solid red line ### Detailed Analysis or Content Details **Llama-3 Chart:** * **ACC-Collab (Ours):** Starts at approximately 0.58, decreases slightly to 0.57 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.57-0.58 through round 4. * **ACC-Collab + (Ours):** Starts at approximately 0.57, increases to a peak of approximately 0.59 at round 1, then decreases to approximately 0.57 by round 4. * **DebateGPT:** Starts at approximately 0.53, increases to approximately 0.56 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.55-0.56 through round 4. * **DebateTune:** Starts at approximately 0.54, increases to approximately 0.56 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.55-0.56 through round 4. * **SFT:** Starts at approximately 0.52, increases to approximately 0.54 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.53-0.54 through round 4. * **Persona:** Starts at approximately 0.49, increases to approximately 0.51 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.50-0.51 through round 4. * **SoM (4x):** Starts at approximately 0.49, increases to approximately 0.51 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.50-0.51 through round 4. * **SoM (2x):** Starts at approximately 0.48, increases to approximately 0.50 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.49-0.50 through round 4. **Mistral Chart:** * **ACC-Collab (Ours):** Starts at approximately 0.60, decreases to approximately 0.58 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.58-0.60 through round 4. * **ACC-Collab + (Ours):** Starts at approximately 0.59, remains relatively stable around 0.58-0.59 through round 4. * **DebateGPT:** Starts at approximately 0.49, increases to approximately 0.51 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.50-0.51 through round 4. * **DebateTune:** Starts at approximately 0.48, increases to approximately 0.50 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.49-0.50 through round 4. * **SFT:** Starts at approximately 0.46, increases to approximately 0.48 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.47-0.48 through round 4. * **Persona:** Starts at approximately 0.45, increases to approximately 0.47 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.46-0.47 through round 4. * **SoM (4x):** Starts at approximately 0.44, increases to approximately 0.46 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.45-0.46 through round 4. * **SoM (2x):** Starts at approximately 0.43, increases to approximately 0.45 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.44-0.45 through round 4. **Gemma-2 Chart:** * **ACC-Collab (Ours):** Starts at approximately 0.51, decreases slightly to approximately 0.50 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.50-0.51 through round 4. * **ACC-Collab + (Ours):** Starts at approximately 0.50, remains relatively stable around 0.49-0.50 through round 4. * **DebateGPT:** Starts at approximately 0.48, increases to approximately 0.49 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.48-0.49 through round 4. * **DebateTune:** Starts at approximately 0.47, increases to approximately 0.48 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.47-0.48 through round 4. * **SFT:** Starts at approximately 0.46, increases to approximately 0.47 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.46-0.47 through round 4. * **Persona:** Starts at approximately 0.45, increases to approximately 0.46 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.45-0.46 through round 4. * **SoM (4x):** Starts at approximately 0.44, increases to approximately 0.45 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.44-0.45 through round 4. * **SoM (2x):** Starts at approximately 0.43, increases to approximately 0.44 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.43-0.44 through round 4. ### Key Observations * ACC-Collab (Ours) consistently achieves the highest accuracy across all models and rounds, although the gains are modest. * ACC-Collab + (Ours) generally performs slightly worse than ACC-Collab (Ours). * SoM (2x) and SoM (4x) consistently have the lowest accuracy across all models. * The accuracy curves for most training methods tend to plateau after round 1, indicating diminishing returns from further rounds. * Mistral consistently shows the highest overall accuracy compared to Llama-3 and Gemma-2. ### Interpretation The data suggests that the "ACC-Collab (Ours)" training method is the most effective for improving the accuracy of these language models, but the improvements are not substantial. The relatively flat accuracy curves after round 1 indicate that the models may be reaching a point of diminishing returns with further training. The differences in initial accuracy and overall performance between the models (Llama-3, Mistral, and Gemma-2) suggest inherent differences in their architectures or pre-training data. The consistently low performance of SoM (2x) and SoM (4x) suggests that this training method is less effective than the others. The slight decrease in accuracy for ACC-Collab (Ours) in Llama-3 and Gemma-2 after round 1 could indicate overfitting or the need for regularization techniques. The data highlights the importance of choosing the right training method and model for a specific task, as well as the potential for diminishing returns from continued training. </details> Figure 8: Accuracy over five rounds of deliberation on BBH. <details> <summary>extracted/6248978/plots/new_perRoundSCIQ.png Details</summary>  ### Visual Description \n ## Line Chart: Accuracy vs. Round for Different Models and Training Methods ### Overview The image presents three line charts, each displaying the accuracy of different language models (Llama-3, Mistral, and Gemma-2) across four rounds of evaluation. Each chart includes multiple lines representing different training methods or configurations applied to the respective model. The y-axis represents accuracy, and the x-axis represents the round number. ### Components/Axes * **X-axis:** "Round" with values 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4. * **Y-axis:** "Accuracy" with a scale ranging from approximately 0.84 to 0.95. * **Models (Charts):** Llama-3, Mistral, Gemma-2. * **Training Methods/Configurations (Legend):** * SoM (2x) - Dashed dark blue line * SoM (4x) - Dashed purple line * Persona - Solid purple line * DebateTune - Solid green line * SFT - Solid light green line * DebateGPT - Solid dark green line * ACC-Collab (Ours) - Solid orange line * ACC-Collab + (Ours) - Dashed orange line ### Detailed Analysis or Content Details **Llama-3 Chart:** * **ACC-Collab (Ours):** Starts at approximately 0.945 accuracy at round 0, increases slightly to around 0.947 at round 1, then decreases to approximately 0.943 at round 4. * **ACC-Collab + (Ours):** Starts at approximately 0.925 accuracy at round 0, increases to around 0.935 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.932-0.934 for rounds 2-4. * **SoM (2x):** Starts at approximately 0.922 accuracy at round 0, increases to around 0.926 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.924-0.927 for rounds 2-4. * **SoM (4x):** Starts at approximately 0.918 accuracy at round 0, increases to around 0.922 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.920-0.923 for rounds 2-4. * **Persona:** Starts at approximately 0.920 accuracy at round 0, increases to around 0.924 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.922-0.925 for rounds 2-4. * **DebateTune:** Starts at approximately 0.924 accuracy at round 0, increases to around 0.928 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.926-0.929 for rounds 2-4. * **SFT:** Starts at approximately 0.922 accuracy at round 0, increases to around 0.926 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.924-0.927 for rounds 2-4. * **DebateGPT:** Starts at approximately 0.920 accuracy at round 0, increases to around 0.924 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.922-0.925 for rounds 2-4. **Mistral Chart:** * **ACC-Collab (Ours):** Starts at approximately 0.885 accuracy at round 0, increases to around 0.90 at round 1, then decreases to approximately 0.895 at round 4. * **ACC-Collab + (Ours):** Starts at approximately 0.855 accuracy at round 0, increases to around 0.87 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.865-0.875 for rounds 2-4. * **SoM (2x):** Starts at approximately 0.850 accuracy at round 0, increases to around 0.860 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.855-0.865 for rounds 2-4. * **SoM (4x):** Starts at approximately 0.840 accuracy at round 0, increases to around 0.850 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.845-0.855 for rounds 2-4. * **Persona:** Starts at approximately 0.845 accuracy at round 0, increases to around 0.855 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.850-0.855 for rounds 2-4. * **DebateTune:** Starts at approximately 0.855 accuracy at round 0, increases to around 0.865 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.860-0.865 for rounds 2-4. * **SFT:** Starts at approximately 0.850 accuracy at round 0, increases to around 0.860 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.855-0.865 for rounds 2-4. * **DebateGPT:** Starts at approximately 0.845 accuracy at round 0, increases to around 0.855 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.850-0.855 for rounds 2-4. **Gemma-2 Chart:** * **ACC-Collab (Ours):** Starts at approximately 0.915 accuracy at round 0, decreases to around 0.910 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.912-0.915 for rounds 2-4. * **ACC-Collab + (Ours):** Starts at approximately 0.895 accuracy at round 0, increases to around 0.905 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.900-0.905 for rounds 2-4. * **SoM (2x):** Starts at approximately 0.890 accuracy at round 0, increases to around 0.900 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.895-0.900 for rounds 2-4. * **SoM (4x):** Starts at approximately 0.885 accuracy at round 0, increases to around 0.895 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.890-0.895 for rounds 2-4. * **Persona:** Starts at approximately 0.890 accuracy at round 0, increases to around 0.900 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.895-0.900 for rounds 2-4. * **DebateTune:** Starts at approximately 0.895 accuracy at round 0, increases to around 0.905 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.900-0.905 for rounds 2-4. * **SFT:** Starts at approximately 0.890 accuracy at round 0, increases to around 0.900 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.895-0.900 for rounds 2-4. * **DebateGPT:** Starts at approximately 0.885 accuracy at round 0, increases to around 0.895 at round 1, then remains relatively stable around 0.890-0.895 for rounds 2-4. ### Key Observations * "ACC-Collab (Ours)" generally achieves the highest accuracy across all three models, especially in the Llama-3 chart. * The "ACC-Collab + (Ours)" method consistently performs better than the base "ACC-Collab (Ours)" method in the Mistral and Gemma-2 charts. * The accuracy of most methods tends to plateau after round 1, with minimal changes observed in subsequent rounds. * Mistral consistently shows lower overall accuracy compared to Llama-3 and Gemma-2. ### Interpretation The charts demonstrate the effectiveness of the "ACC-Collab" training method, particularly when combined with the "+" variant, in improving the accuracy of language models. The plateauing accuracy after round 1 suggests that the models may be reaching a point of diminishing returns with further training using these methods. The lower accuracy observed for Mistral could indicate that this model requires different training strategies or is inherently less performant on the specific task being evaluated. The consistent performance of SoM, Persona, DebateTune, SFT, and DebateGPT suggests they provide a stable baseline, but do not reach the performance levels of the ACC-Collab methods. The differences in performance across models highlight the importance of tailoring training methods to the specific characteristics of each model. </details> Figure 9: Accuracy over five rounds of deliberation on SCIQ. <details> <summary>extracted/6248978/plots/new_perRoundARC.png Details</summary>  ### Visual Description \n ## Line Chart: Accuracy vs. Round for Different Models and Training Methods ### Overview The image presents three line charts, each displaying the accuracy of different language models (Llama-3, Mistral, and Gemma-2) across four rounds of evaluation. Each chart includes multiple lines representing different training methods applied to the respective model. The y-axis represents accuracy, and the x-axis represents the round number. Shaded areas around each line indicate confidence intervals. ### Components/Axes * **X-axis:** "Round" with values 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4. * **Y-axis:** "Accuracy" with a scale ranging from approximately 0.855 to 0.86 (Llama-3), 0.81 to 0.86 (Mistral), and 0.81 to 0.855 (Gemma-2). * **Legends:** Each chart has a legend at the bottom identifying the different training methods/models. * **Llama-3:** SoM (2x) - dashed dark blue, SoM (4x) - dashed light blue, Persona - solid green, DebateTune - solid dark green, SFT - solid light green, DebateGPT - solid yellow, ACC-Collab (Ours) - solid orange, ACC-Collab + (Ours) - dashed orange. * **Mistral:** SoM (2x) - dashed dark blue, SoM (4x) - dashed light blue, Persona - solid green, DebateTune - solid dark green, SFT - solid light green, DebateGPT - solid yellow, ACC-Collab (Ours) - solid orange, ACC-Collab + (Ours) - dashed orange. * **Gemma-2:** SoM (2x) - dashed dark blue, SoM (4x) - dashed light blue, Persona - solid green, DebateTune - solid dark green, SFT - solid light green, DebateGPT - solid yellow, ACC-Collab (Ours) - solid orange, ACC-Collab + (Ours) - dashed orange. ### Detailed Analysis or Content Details **Llama-3 Chart:** * **SoM (2x):** Starts at approximately 0.871, remains relatively stable around 0.870 across all rounds. * **SoM (4x):** Starts at approximately 0.868, increases slightly to around 0.870 by round 2, then plateaus. * **Persona:** Starts at approximately 0.866, increases to around 0.871 by round 2, then plateaus. * **DebateTune:** Starts at approximately 0.864, increases to around 0.870 by round 2, then plateaus. * **SFT:** Starts at approximately 0.863, increases to around 0.868 by round 2, then plateaus. * **DebateGPT:** Starts at approximately 0.862, increases to around 0.867 by round 2, then plateaus. * **ACC-Collab (Ours):** Starts at approximately 0.860, increases steadily to around 0.875 by round 4. * **ACC-Collab + (Ours):** Starts at approximately 0.858, increases steadily to around 0.877 by round 4. **Mistral Chart:** * **SoM (2x):** Starts at approximately 0.823, increases to around 0.826 by round 1, then plateaus. * **SoM (4x):** Starts at approximately 0.821, increases to around 0.825 by round 1, then plateaus. * **Persona:** Starts at approximately 0.819, increases to around 0.825 by round 1, then plateaus. * **DebateTune:** Starts at approximately 0.818, increases to around 0.824 by round 1, then plateaus. * **SFT:** Starts at approximately 0.817, increases to around 0.823 by round 1, then plateaus. * **DebateGPT:** Starts at approximately 0.816, increases to around 0.822 by round 1, then plateaus. * **ACC-Collab (Ours):** Starts at approximately 0.820, increases steadily to around 0.850 by round 4. * **ACC-Collab + (Ours):** Starts at approximately 0.819, increases steadily to around 0.855 by round 4. **Gemma-2 Chart:** * **SoM (2x):** Starts at approximately 0.832, increases to around 0.835 by round 1, then plateaus. * **SoM (4x):** Starts at approximately 0.830, increases to around 0.834 by round 1, then plateaus. * **Persona:** Starts at approximately 0.828, increases to around 0.833 by round 1, then plateaus. * **DebateTune:** Starts at approximately 0.827, increases to around 0.832 by round 1, then plateaus. * **SFT:** Starts at approximately 0.826, increases to around 0.831 by round 1, then plateaus. * **DebateGPT:** Starts at approximately 0.825, increases to around 0.830 by round 1, then plateaus. * **ACC-Collab (Ours):** Starts at approximately 0.824, increases steadily to around 0.848 by round 4. * **ACC-Collab + (Ours):** Starts at approximately 0.823, increases steadily to around 0.852 by round 4. ### Key Observations * In all three models, the "ACC-Collab (Ours)" and "ACC-Collab + (Ours)" methods consistently outperform other training methods, showing a clear upward trend in accuracy across rounds. * The other training methods (SoM, Persona, DebateTune, SFT, DebateGPT) generally plateau in accuracy after round 1 or 2. * Mistral starts with the lowest initial accuracy among the three models, but shows significant improvement with the "ACC-Collab" methods. * Llama-3 starts with the highest initial accuracy, and the "ACC-Collab" methods provide incremental gains. ### Interpretation The data suggests that the "ACC-Collab" training methods are highly effective in improving the accuracy of these language models, particularly over multiple rounds of evaluation. The consistent upward trend indicates that these methods allow the models to learn and refine their performance with continued exposure. The plateauing of other methods suggests they may reach a performance limit relatively quickly. The differences in initial accuracy and improvement rates between the models highlight the varying capabilities and sensitivities of each model to different training approaches. The "ACC-Collab +" method consistently outperforms the "ACC-Collab" method, suggesting that the additional component provides a further boost to performance. This data could be used to inform the selection of training methods for these models, with a strong recommendation for the "ACC-Collab" approaches. The confidence intervals (shaded areas) indicate the uncertainty in the accuracy measurements, but the overall trends remain clear. </details> Figure 10: Accuracy over five rounds of deliberation on ARC. ## Appendix C Examples ### C.1 Prompts Here, we provide examples of the prompts used in our experiments. For illustration, we provide prompts for the BoolQ dataset in which agents are asked a yes-no question about a passage. #### Single-Shot Prompt (No Deliberation) prompt = (’You will be given a yes-no question which is based on a passage. ’ ’You should use the passage to help you answer the question. ’ ’You should give a brief justification for your answer, ’ ’and you must provide a final answer of either Yes or No.’ ’\nQuestion: {question}?’ ’\nPassage: {passage}’ ) #### Guided Single-Shot Prompt (No Deliberation) prompt = (’You will be given a yes-no question which is based on a passage. ’ ’You should use the passage to help you answer the question ’ ’with a {target_answer}. ’ ’You should give a brief justification for your answer of {target_answer}, and you must state that your final answer is {target_answer}.’ ’\nQuestion: {question}?’ ’\nPassage: {passage}’ ) #### Deliberation Prompt for Actor prompt = (’Several people have provided answers to a yes-no question. ’ ’Below are their responses:’ ’\nPerson {1} said: {responses[1]}’ ’\nPerson {2} said: {responses[2]}’ . . . ’\nPerson {n} said: {responses[n]}’ ’\n\nYou should take these answers into consideration when answering ’ ’the following yes-no question, which is based on a passage. ’ ’You should give a brief justification for your answer, and you must ’ ’provide a final answer of either Yes or No.’ ’\nQuestion: {question}’ ’\nPassage: {passage}’ ) #### Guided Deliberation Prompt for Actor prompt = (’Several people have provided answers to a yes-no question. ’ ’Below are their responses:’ ’\nPerson {1} said: {responses[1]}’ ’\nPerson {2} said: {responses[2]}’ . . . ’\nPerson {n} said: {responses[n]}’ ’You should take these answers and the passage into consideration when ’answering the following question with {target_answer}. ’ ’You should give a brief justification for your answer of {target_answer}, ’and you must state that your final answer is {target_answer}.’ ’\nQuestion: {question}’ ’\nPassage: {passage}’ ) #### Deliberation Prompt for Critic prompt = (’I am answering a question based on a passage. ’ ’I would like you to help me improve the correctness of my response ’ ’by briefly providing some additional details my original response ’ ’may have missed. ’ ’\nQuestion: {question}’ ’\nPassage: {passage}’ ’\nMy Response: {actor_response}’ ) #### Guided Deliberation Prompt for Critic prompt = (’I would like you to be a deliberation assistant. ’ ’You will be given a question based on a passage and my response ’ ’to the question. ’ ’You should use the passage and my response to develop additional details ’for why the correct answer is {target_answer}. ’ ’Your details must be brief and must support the fact that the ’ ’correct answer is {target_answer}.’ ’\nQuestion: {question}?’ ’\nPassage: {passage}’ ’\nMy Response: {actor_response}’ ) ### C.2 Critic Responses Here, we present several examples of the critic’s responses when the actor provides the wrong answer; critic responses are shown before and after training with ACC-Collab. We observed a qualitative change in the critic’s responses after training with our pipeline; the critic was more willing to disagree with the actor, and the critic provided more detailed feedback. ACTOR: [Wrong] Final answer, No. Non-residents cannot bring a handgun into New York for possession or carry within the state based on the passage. They can only transport it through New York to a destination outside of the state where it is legal to possess and carry. UNTRAINED CRITIC: Your response is mostly correct. I would add that New York has strict gun control laws, so even if a non-resident is allowed to transport a firearm through the state, they should be aware that certain areas may have additional restrictions, such as prohibitions on carrying the firearm in certain public places or parks. It’s always a good idea to check the specific laws of the jurisdiction they will be passing through and their final destination. TRAINED CRITIC: Details refuting your response: 1. The passage mentions that non-residents can transport any lawful firearm through New York, which implies that the firearm is temporarily in New York state territory during transit. This suggests that under certain circumstances, a handgun could be brought into New York for transit purposes, even if it cannot be carried within the state. 2. The passage does not explicitly state that non-residents are prohibited from bringing handguns into New York. Instead, it only specifies that they cannot possess or carry handguns within the state. This ambiguity leaves room for interpretation that a handgun could be brought into New York for transit purposes as long as it is not carried within the state. ACTOR: [Wrong] Answer: Yes, the passage states that in the Northern Atlantic Ocean, the hurricane season starts as early as June 1 and ends on November 30, with the peak of activity occurring from late August through September. However, the passage also mentions an exception where the hurricane season started as early as January 3 in 1938. Therefore, while the typical start of the hurricane season is June 1, it is possible for the season to begin earlier, as indicated by the passage. UNTRAINED CRITIC: Your response is correct and provides a good justification based on the passage. However, you could add that the passage mentions that May is the least active month for tropical cyclone activity worldwide, but May is still within the Atlantic hurricane season. Therefore, while the peak of the Atlantic hurricane season is from late August through September, the season technically starts earlier. TRAINED CRITIC: While your response is correct in stating that the typical hurricane season in the Northern Atlantic Ocean starts on June 1 and ends on November 30, with the peak of activity occurring from late August through September, the passage also emphasizes that each particular basin has its own seasonal patterns. The passage mentions the exception of the 1938 hurricane season starting as early as January 3, which is outside the typical seasonal window. This detail directly refutes your response by emphasizing that while the typical season starts in June, it is not unheard of for the season to begin earlier, as demonstrated by historical records. Another detail from the passage that supports the fact that the answer is No, is that the passage states that ”worldwide, tropical cyclone activity peaks in late summer,” which is contradictory to your response that the hurricane season starts in spring. The passage explicitly states that the peak of tropical cyclone activity occurs in late summer, which is later than spring. ACTOR: [Wrong] Final Answer: (A) rated the group as less interesting and enjoyable. Justification: Aronson and Mills’ study found that severe initiation processes negatively impact immediate attitudes towards the group due to discomfort and negative emotions. (Person 0) Additionally, severe initiation may create pressure to conform and social comparison, making the group less appealing. (Person 1) UNTRAINED CRITIC: Your response is correct. I’d add that Aronson and Mills found that severe initiation rites can create a sense of exclusion and pain, which may negatively impact attitudes towards the group. (A) TRAINED CRITIC: Response: While your justification supports the fact that severe initiation can negatively impact attitudes towards the group, it does not fully refute the alternative answers. Let me provide brief details to argue for the correct answer, B being ”rated the group as more interesting and enjoyable”: 1. Counter-intuitive findings: Research suggests that negative experiences can sometimes lead to stronger group identification and commitment. The discomfort and negative emotions generated during severe initiation may create a sense of camaraderie and solidarity among group members, ultimately increasing their overall enjoyment of the group (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). 2. Long-term benefits: Although severe initiation might result in negative emotions initially, the feelings of bonding and group cohesion that develop during the initiation process can endure and even enhance members’ attachment to the group over time (Sue Carter & Branscombe, 1994). This increased commitment can lead to a heightened sense of enjoyment and engagement with the group. ACTOR: [Wrong] Final Answer: (B) Catalhoyuk and Gobekli Tepe Justification: These sites have provided evidence for social complexity without clear agricultural surpluses. Catalhoyuk had centralized planning and hierarchical social organization but no conclusive evidence for agricultural surpluses. Gobekli Tepe was likely a religious or ceremonial center predating the agricultural revolution. UNTRAINNED CRITIC: Your response is correct. I’d add that Catalhoyuk had a population of up to 8,000 people and was the world’s first known urban settlement, while Gobekli Tepe’s T-shaped pillars date back to around 9600 BCE and suggest the existence of social and religious institutions that predate agriculture. TRAINED CRITIC: While your justification for option (B) is correct, I would like to provide additional details for option (D) to refute potential responses in favor of other options. Option (A): Stonehenge and Caral Justification: Although these sites have evidence of social complexity, there is no clear evidence that they lacked agricultural surpluses. Stonehenge, for instance, is believed to have served as a ceremonial and astronomical center, but its relationship to agriculture remains unclear. Caral, on the other hand, has evidence of irrigation systems, suggesting some agricultural production, even if not a surplus. Option (C): La Venta and Catalhoyuk Justification: La Venta is an example of a complex civilization with evidence of agricultural surpluses. While Catalhoyuk is an example of social complexity without clear agricultural surpluses, as you mentioned, La Venta challenges the idea that social complexity always required surpluses. Option (D): Gobekli Tepe and Poverty Point Justification: Gobekli Tepe is believed to be a religious or ceremonial center that predates the agricultural revolution. Poverty Point, on the other hand, is a complex society that existed around 3200 BCE and had advanced engineering skills but no clear evidence of agricultural surpluses. These sites’ existence undermines the hypothesis that social complexity always required agricultural surpluses, providing further evidence for option (D) being the correct answer. ACTOR: [Wrong] Final Answer: (A) psychological reactance. This is because your friend’s statement suggests that they feel frustrated or resistant when external factors prevent them from going on vacation, indicating a desire to have more freedom to make their own choices. Psychological reactance is the tendency to react negatively when our freedom is threatened. UNTRAINED CRITIC: Your response is correct. I’d add that psychological reactance often results in an exaggerated perception of the importance or severity of the obstacles, leading your friend to believe that there’s always a crisis preventing them from vacationing when in reality, the obstacles may not be as significant as they seem. TRAINED CRITIC: While your response is plausible and accurately describes psychological reactance, let me provide two brief reasons why the correct answer is still (C) illusory correlation: 1. Illusory correlation refers to the perception of a relationship between variables when none or only a weak relationship actually exists. In this case, your friend might perceive a strong correlation between planning a vacation and experiencing crises at home or work, leading them to believe that their vacations are consistently disrupted, even if the actual correlation is weak or non-existent. 2. Psychological reactance is primarily concerned with an individual’s desire to react negatively when their freedom is restricted or threatened, not necessarily a misperception of causal relationships. However, the friend’s statement does imply a belief that external factors are consistently preventing them from going on vacations, which could be a manifestation of illusory correlation. ACTOR: [Wrong] Final Answer: (D) a zygote. Justification: A zygote is the first cell formed when two gametes merge, marking the beginning of organismic development. UNTRAINED CRITIC: Your response is correct. Just to add, a zygote is formed by the fusion of an sperm (male gamete) and an egg (female gamete), resulting in a diploid cell containing genetic material from both parents. This is the initial stage of an organism’s development. TRAINED CRITIC: I agree with your response that the answer is (D) a zygote. However, to further support why (A) a gamete and (C) a nucleus are incorrect, let me provide brief details: (A) A gamete is a reproductive cell that fuses with another gamete during fertilization to form a zygote. Therefore, it is not an organism in the earliest stages of development but rather a part of the process leading to the formation of an organism. (C) A nucleus is an organelle within a cell that contains genetic material. It is not an organism but rather a component of a cell, and it is present in the zygote after fertilization has occurred. So, both (A) and (C) can be ruled out as they do not represent the organism in the earliest stages of development, and the correct answer is (D) a zygote. ACTOR: [Wrong] Final Answer: (A) metamorphic rocks and (B) any types of rocks (specifically igneous rocks when they undergo metamorphosis). UNTRAINED CRITIC: Your response is mostly correct, but it would be more precise to clarify that options B and C also include metamorphic rocks when they mention ”any types of rocks” and ”igneous rocks,” respectively. Metamorphic rocks form from the alteration of pre-existing rocks under heat, pressure, or chemical conditions. Thus, all three options (A, B, and C) are correct, but option A is the most explicit about the transformation process involved. TRAINED CRITIC: Sure! Here are two brief details supporting the correct answer (A) metamorphic rocks and (B) any types of rocks (specifically igneous rocks when they undergo metamorphosis): 1. Metamorphic rocks result from the transformation of pre-existing rocks under high pressure and temperature conditions. This process causes the minerals in the rocks to change, resulting in a new type of rock. For example, sedimentary rocks like shale or limestone can be transformed into metamorphic rocks like slate or marble, respectively. 2. Igneous rocks can also undergo metamorphosis when they are exposed to high pressure and temperature conditions. This process results in the recrystallization of minerals and the formation of new textures. For example, granite can be transformed into gneiss or schist when subjected to metamorphic conditions. Therefore, any type of rock, including igneous rocks, can change and become new types of rocks through metamorphosis. ACTOR: [Wrong] Final Answer: (C) white present Justification: Gertrude initially had a yellow present, but she swapped it with Alice, who had a white present. Therefore, Gertrude now has the white present. UNTRAINED CRITIC: Your response is correct. I’d add that after Gertrude swaps with Alice, none of the following swaps involve Gertrude giving away or receiving the white present. TRAINED CRITIC: While your justification is correct that Gertrude initially had a yellow present and swapped it with Alice’s white present, I would like to add two additional details that refute your response and support option D, brown present. First, prior to swapping with Alice, Gertrude swapped her yellow present with Dave’s brown present. Second, in the final round of swaps, Fred and Eve swap their presents, and Gertrude’s white present (which she received from Alice) is not mentioned in the swap between Fred and Eve. Therefore, based on the information provided, Gertrude could still have the brown present that she received from Dave earlier in the game. ACTOR: [Wrong] Final Answer: None of the given options are correct. The construction site was closed during the hours Thomas was engaged in the mentioned activities, and there is no information indicating that Thomas visited the construction site before 6am. UNTRAINED CRITIC: Your response is correct. I would add that Thomas’ activities from 6am to 8am (gym, yoga studio, and movie theater) all occurred before the construction site opened. Therefore, option (D) can be eliminated as well. TRAINED CRITIC: While it’s true that none of the given options are correct, I’d like to provide some brief additional details to support the fact that the correct answer is D (6am to 8am), if that was an option. Here’s why: 1. Thomas was seen at the gym from 8am to 11am, and at the yoga studio from 11am to 3pm, meaning he was engaged in those activities between those hours. There’s no information indicating that he left those places earlier or returned later. 2. He was seen at the movie theater from 3pm to 6pm, and at the Leaning Tower of Pisa from 6pm to 7pm. Again, there’s no information indicating that he left the movie theater earlier or arrived at the Leaning Tower of Pisa later. 3. The construction site was closed after 7pm. However, the options don’t include any time before 7pm. If Thomas could have gone to the construction site before 7pm, the correct answer would be one of the options A, B, or C. 4. Since none of the options include the time before 7pm, and Thomas was engaged in activities during the entire day, the only time left for him to visit the construction site, assuming he did, would be before 7am. However, the options don’t include that time frame. Therefore, if we had the option D (6am to 8am), it would be the correct answer, as it’s the only time frame that fits the given information. In conclusion, while the given options are not correct, if option D (6am to 8am) was an option, it would be the correct answer based on the information provided.