Voting or Consensus? Decision-Making in Multi-Agent Debate

Much of the success of multi-agent debates depends on carefully choosing the right parameters. Among them, the decision-making protocol stands out. Systematic comparison of decision protocols is difficult because studies alter multiple discussion parameters beyond the protocol. So far, it has been largely unknown how decision-making addresses the challenges of different tasks. This work systematically evaluates the impact of seven decision protocols (e.g., majority voting, unanimity consensus). We change only one variable at a time (i.e., decision protocol) to analyze how different methods affect the collaboration between agents and test different protocols on knowledge (MMLU, MMLU-Pro, GPQA) and reasoning datasets (StrategyQA, MuSR, SQuAD 2.0). Our results show that voting protocols improve performance by 13.2% in reasoning tasks and consensus protocols by 2.8% in knowledge tasks over the other decision protocol. Increasing the number of agents improves performance, while more discussion rounds before voting reduces it. To improve decision-making by increasing answer diversity, we propose two new methods, All-Agents Drafting (AAD) and Collective Improvement (CI). Our methods improve task performance by up to 3.3% with AAD and up to 7.4% with CI. This work demonstrates the importance of decision-making in multi-agent debates beyond scaling.

Stay Focused: Problem Drift in Multi-Agent Debate

Multi-agent debate - multiple instances of large language models discussing problems in turn-based interaction - has shown promise for solving knowledge and reasoning tasks. However, these methods show limitations, particularly when scaling them to longer reasoning chains. In this study, we unveil a new issue of multi-agent debate: discussions drift away from the initial problem over multiple turns. We define this phenomenon as problem drift and quantify its presence across ten tasks (i.e., three generative, three knowledge, three reasoning, and one instruction-following task). To identify the reasons for this issue, we perform a human study with eight experts on discussions suffering from problem drift, who find the most common issues are a lack of progress (35% of cases), low-quality feedback (26% of cases), and a lack of clarity (25% of cases). To systematically address the issue of problem drift, we propose DRIFTJudge, a method based on LLM-as-a-judge, to detect problem drift at test-time. We further propose DRIFTPolicy, a method to mitigate 31% of problem drift cases. Our study can be seen as a first step to understanding a key limitation of multi-agent debate, highlighting pathways for improving their effectiveness in the future.

You need to MIMIC to get FAME: Solving Meeting Transcript Scarcity with a Multi-Agent Conversations

Meeting summarization suffers from limited high-quality data, mainly due to privacy restrictions and expensive collection processes. We address this gap with FAME, a dataset of 500 meetings in English and 300 in German produced by MIMIC, our new multi-agent meeting synthesis framework that generates meeting transcripts on a given knowledge source by defining psychologically grounded participant profiles, outlining the conversation, and orchestrating a large language model (LLM) debate. A modular post-processing step refines these outputs, mitigating potential repetitiveness and overly formal tones, ensuring coherent, credible dialogues at scale. We also propose a psychologically grounded evaluation framework assessing naturalness, social behavior authenticity, and transcript difficulties. Human assessments show that FAME approximates real-meeting spontaneity (4.5/5 in naturalness), preserves speaker-centric challenges (3/5 in spoken language), and introduces richer information-oriented difficulty (4/5 in difficulty). These findings highlight that FAME is a good and scalable proxy for real-world meeting conditions. It enables new test scenarios for meeting summarization research and other conversation-centric applications in tasks requiring conversation data or simulating social scenarios under behavioral constraints.

BRIGHTER: BRIdging the Gap in Human-Annotated Textual Emotion Recognition Datasets for 28 Languages

People worldwide use language in subtle and complex ways to express emotions. While emotion recognition -- an umbrella term for several NLP tasks -- significantly impacts different applications in NLP and other fields, most work in the area is focused on high-resource languages. Therefore, this has led to major disparities in research and proposed solutions, especially for low-resource languages that suffer from the lack of high-quality datasets. In this paper, we present BRIGHTER-- a collection of multilabeled emotion-annotated datasets in 28 different languages. BRIGHTER covers predominantly low-resource languages from Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, and Latin America, with instances from various domains annotated by fluent speakers. We describe the data collection and annotation processes and the challenges of building these datasets. Then, we report different experimental results for monolingual and crosslingual multi-label emotion identification, as well as intensity-level emotion recognition. We investigate results with and without using LLMs and analyse the large variability in performance across languages and text domains. We show that BRIGHTER datasets are a step towards bridging the gap in text-based emotion recognition and discuss their impact and utility.

Automated Collection of Evaluation Dataset for Semantic Search in Low-Resource Domain Language

Domain-specific languages that use a lot of specific terminology often fall into the category of low-resource languages. Collecting test datasets in a narrow domain is time-consuming and requires skilled human resources with domain knowledge and training for the annotation task. This study addresses the challenge of automated collecting test datasets to evaluate semantic search in low-resource domain-specific German language of the process industry. Our approach proposes an end-to-end annotation pipeline for automated query generation to the score reassessment of query-document pairs. To overcome the lack of text encoders trained in the German chemistry domain, we explore a principle of an ensemble of "weak" text encoders trained on common knowledge datasets. We combine individual relevance scores from diverse models to retrieve document candidates and relevance scores generated by an LLM, aiming to achieve consensus on query-document alignment. Evaluation results demonstrate that the ensemble method significantly improves alignment with human-assigned relevance scores, outperforming individual models in both inter-coder agreement and accuracy metrics. These findings suggest that ensemble learning can effectively adapt semantic search systems for specialized, low-resource languages, offering a practical solution to resource limitations in domain-specific contexts.

Is my Meeting Summary Good? Estimating Quality with a Multi-LLM Evaluator

The quality of meeting summaries generated by natural language generation (NLG) systems is hard to measure automatically. Established metrics such as ROUGE and BERTScore have a relatively low correlation with human judgments and fail to capture nuanced errors. Recent studies suggest using large language models (LLMs), which have the benefit of better context understanding and adaption of error definitions without training on a large number of human preference judgments. However, current LLM-based evaluators risk masking errors and can only serve as a weak proxy, leaving human evaluation the gold standard despite being costly and hard to compare across studies. In this work, we present MESA, an LLM-based framework employing a three-step assessment of individual error types, multi-agent discussion for decision refinement, and feedback-based self-training to refine error definition understanding and alignment with human judgment. We show that MESA's components enable thorough error detection, consistent rating, and adaptability to custom error guidelines. Using GPT-4o as its backbone, MESA achieves mid to high Point-Biserial correlation with human judgment in error detection and mid Spearman and Kendall correlation in reflecting error impact on summary quality, on average 0.25 higher than previous methods. The framework's flexibility in adapting to custom error guidelines makes it suitable for various tasks with limited human-labeled data.

The Promises and Pitfalls of LLM Annotations in Dataset Labeling: a Case Study on Media Bias Detection

High annotation costs from hiring or crowdsourcing complicate the creation of large, high-quality datasets needed for training reliable text classifiers. Recent research suggests using Large Language Models (LLMs) to automate the annotation process, reducing these costs while maintaining data quality. LLMs have shown promising results in annotating downstream tasks like hate speech detection and political framing. Building on the success in these areas, this study investigates whether LLMs are viable for annotating the complex task of media bias detection and whether a downstream media bias classifier can be trained on such data. We create annolexical, the first large-scale dataset for media bias classification with over 48000 synthetically annotated examples. Our classifier, fine-tuned on this dataset, surpasses all of the annotator LLMs by 5-9 percent in Matthews Correlation Coefficient (MCC) and performs close to or outperforms the model trained on human-labeled data when evaluated on two media bias benchmark datasets (BABE and BASIL). This study demonstrates how our approach significantly reduces the cost of dataset creation in the media bias domain and, by extension, the development of classifiers, while our subsequent behavioral stress-testing reveals some of its current limitations and trade-offs.

Tell me what I need to know: Exploring LLM-based (Personalized) Abstractive Multi-Source Meeting Summarization

Meeting summarization is crucial in digital communication, but existing solutions struggle with salience identification to generate personalized, workable summaries, and context understanding to fully comprehend the meetings' content. Previous attempts to address these issues by considering related supplementary resources (e.g., presentation slides) alongside transcripts are hindered by models' limited context sizes and handling the additional complexities of the multi-source tasks, such as identifying relevant information in additional files and seamlessly aligning it with the meeting content. This work explores multi-source meeting summarization considering supplementary materials through a three-stage large language model approach: identifying transcript passages needing additional context, inferring relevant details from supplementary materials and inserting them into the transcript, and generating a summary from this enriched transcript. Our multi-source approach enhances model understanding, increasing summary relevance by ~9% and producing more content-rich outputs. We introduce a personalization protocol that extracts participant characteristics and tailors summaries accordingly, improving informativeness by ~10%. This work further provides insights on performance-cost trade-offs across four leading model families, including edge-device capable options. Our approach can be extended to similar complex generative tasks benefitting from additional resources and personalization, such as dialogue systems and action planning.

What's Wrong? Refining Meeting Summaries with LLM Feedback

Meeting summarization has become a critical task since digital encounters have become a common practice. Large language models (LLMs) show great potential in summarization, offering enhanced coherence and context understanding compared to traditional methods. However, they still struggle to maintain relevance and avoid hallucination. We introduce a multi-LLM correction approach for meeting summarization using a two-phase process that mimics the human review process: mistake identification and summary refinement. We release QMSum Mistake, a dataset of 200 automatically generated meeting summaries annotated by humans on nine error types, including structural, omission, and irrelevance errors. Our experiments show that these errors can be identified with high accuracy by an LLM. We transform identified mistakes into actionable feedback to improve the quality of a given summary measured by relevance, informativeness, conciseness, and coherence. This post-hoc refinement effectively improves summary quality by leveraging multiple LLMs to validate output quality. Our multi-LLM approach for meeting summarization shows potential for similar complex text generation tasks requiring robustness, action planning, and discussion towards a goal.

CiteAssist: A System for Automated Preprint Citation and BibTeX Generation

We present CiteAssist, a system to automate the generation of BibTeX entries for preprints, streamlining the process of bibliographic annotation. Our system extracts metadata, such as author names, titles, publication dates, and keywords, to create standardized annotations within the document. CiteAssist automatically attaches the BibTeX citation to the end of a PDF and links it on the first page of the document so other researchers gain immediate access to the correct citation of the article. This method promotes platform flexibility by ensuring that annotations remain accessible regardless of the repository used to publish or access the preprint. The annotations remain available even if the preprint is viewed externally to CiteAssist. Additionally, the system adds relevant related papers based on extracted keywords to the preprint, providing researchers with additional publications besides those in related work for further reading. Researchers can enhance their preprints organization and reference management workflows through a free and publicly available web interface.