Revisiting Multi-Agent Debate as Test-Time Scaling: A Systematic Study of Conditional Effectiveness

The remarkable growth in large language model (LLM) capabilities has spurred exploration into multi-agent systems, with debate frameworks emerging as a promising avenue for enhanced problem-solving. These multi-agent debate (MAD) approaches, where agents collaboratively present, critique, and refine arguments, potentially offer improved reasoning, robustness, and diverse perspectives over monolithic models. Despite prior studies leveraging MAD, a systematic understanding of its effectiveness compared to self-agent methods, particularly under varying conditions, remains elusive. This paper seeks to fill this gap by conceptualizing MAD as a test-time computational scaling technique, distinguished by collaborative refinement and diverse exploration capabilities. We conduct a comprehensive empirical investigation comparing MAD with strong self-agent test-time scaling baselines on mathematical reasoning and safety-related tasks. Our study systematically examines the influence of task difficulty, model scale, and agent diversity on MAD's performance. Key findings reveal that, for mathematical reasoning, MAD offers limited advantages over self-agent scaling but becomes more effective with increased problem difficulty and decreased model capability, while agent diversity shows little benefit. Conversely, for safety tasks, MAD's collaborative refinement can increase vulnerability, but incorporating diverse agent configurations facilitates a gradual reduction in attack success through the collaborative refinement process. We believe our findings provide critical guidance for the future development of more effective and strategically deployed MAD systems.

WINA: Weight Informed Neuron Activation for Accelerating Large Language Model Inference

The growing computational demands of large language models (LLMs) make efficient inference and activation strategies increasingly critical. While recent approaches, such as Mixture-of-Experts (MoE), leverage selective activation but require specialized training, training-free sparse activation methods offer broader applicability and superior resource efficiency through their plug-and-play design. However, many existing methods rely solely on hidden state magnitudes to determine activation, resulting in high approximation errors and suboptimal inference accuracy. To address these limitations, we propose WINA (Weight Informed Neuron Activation), a novel, simple, and training-free sparse activation framework that jointly considers hidden state magnitudes and the column-wise $\ell_2$-norms of weight matrices. We show that this leads to a sparsification strategy that obtains optimal approximation error bounds with theoretical guarantees tighter than existing techniques. Empirically, WINA also outperforms state-of-the-art methods (e.g., TEAL) by up to $2.94\%$ in average performance at the same sparsity levels, across a diverse set of LLM architectures and datasets. These results position WINA as a new performance frontier for training-free sparse activation in LLM inference, advancing training-free sparse activation methods and setting a robust baseline for efficient inference. The source code is available at https://github.com/microsoft/wina.

Flex-Judge: Think Once, Judge Anywhere

Human-generated reward signals are critical for aligning generative models with human preferences, guiding both training and inference-time evaluations. While large language models (LLMs) employed as proxy evaluators, i.e., LLM-as-a-Judge, significantly reduce the costs associated with manual annotations, they typically require extensive modality-specific training data and fail to generalize well across diverse multimodal tasks. In this paper, we propose Flex-Judge, a reasoning-guided multimodal judge model that leverages minimal textual reasoning data to robustly generalize across multiple modalities and evaluation formats. Our core intuition is that structured textual reasoning explanations inherently encode generalizable decision-making patterns, enabling an effective transfer to multimodal judgments, e.g., with images or videos. Empirical results demonstrate that Flex-Judge, despite being trained on significantly fewer text data, achieves competitive or superior performance compared to state-of-the-art commercial APIs and extensively trained multimodal evaluators. Notably, Flex-Judge presents broad impact in modalities like molecule, where comprehensive evaluation benchmarks are scarce, underscoring its practical value in resource-constrained domains. Our framework highlights reasoning-based text supervision as a powerful, cost-effective alternative to traditional annotation-intensive approaches, substantially advancing scalable multimodal model-as-a-judge.

Bayesian Principles Improve Prompt Learning In Vision-Language Models

Prompt learning is a popular fine-tuning method for vision-language models due to its efficiency. It requires a small number of additional learnable parameters while significantly enhancing performance on target tasks. However, most existing methods suffer from overfitting to fine-tuning data, yielding poor generalizability. To address this, we propose a new training objective function based on a Bayesian learning principle to balance adaptability and generalizability. We derive a prior over the logits, where the mean function is parameterized by the pre-trained model, while the posterior corresponds to the fine-tuned model. This objective establishes a balance by allowing the fine-tuned model to adapt to downstream tasks while remaining close to the pre-trained model.

When Debate Fails: Bias Reinforcement in Large Language Models

Large Language Models $($LLMs$)$ solve complex problems using training-free methods like prompt engineering and in-context learning, yet ensuring reasoning correctness remains challenging. While self-correction methods such as self-consistency and self-refinement aim to improve reliability, they often reinforce biases due to the lack of effective feedback mechanisms. Multi-Agent Debate $($MAD$)$ has emerged as an alternative, but we identify two key limitations: bias reinforcement, where debate amplifies model biases instead of correcting them, and lack of perspective diversity, as all agents share the same model and reasoning patterns, limiting true debate effectiveness. To systematically evaluate these issues, we introduce $\textit{MetaNIM Arena}$, a benchmark designed to assess LLMs in adversarial strategic decision-making, where dynamic interactions influence optimal decisions. To overcome MAD's limitations, we propose $\textbf{DReaMAD}$ $($$\textbf{D}$iverse $\textbf{Rea}$soning via $\textbf{M}$ulti-$\textbf{A}$gent $\textbf{D}$ebate with Refined Prompt$)$, a novel framework that $(1)$ refines LLM's strategic prior knowledge to improve reasoning quality and $(2)$ promotes diverse viewpoints within a single model by systematically modifying prompts, reducing bias. Empirical results show that $\textbf{DReaMAD}$ significantly improves decision accuracy, reasoning diversity, and bias mitigation across multiple strategic tasks, establishing it as a more effective approach for LLM-based decision-making.

DistiLLM-2: A Contrastive Approach Boosts the Distillation of LLMs

Despite the success of distillation in large language models (LLMs), most prior work applies identical loss functions to both teacher- and student-generated data. These strategies overlook the synergy between loss formulations and data types, leading to a suboptimal performance boost in student models. To address this, we propose DistiLLM-2, a contrastive approach that simultaneously increases the likelihood of teacher responses and decreases that of student responses by harnessing this synergy. Our extensive experiments show that DistiLLM-2 not only builds high-performing student models across a wide range of tasks, including instruction-following and code generation, but also supports diverse applications, such as preference alignment and vision-language extensions. These findings highlight the potential of a contrastive approach to enhance the efficacy of LLM distillation by effectively aligning teacher and student models across varied data types.

SeRA: Self-Reviewing and Alignment of Large Language Models using Implicit Reward Margins

Direct alignment algorithms (DAAs), such as direct preference optimization (DPO), have become popular alternatives for Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) due to their simplicity, efficiency, and stability. However, the preferences used in DAAs are usually collected before the alignment training begins and remain unchanged (off-policy). This can lead to two problems where the policy model (1) picks up on spurious correlations in the dataset (as opposed to learning the intended alignment expressed in the human preference labels), and (2) overfits to feedback on off-policy trajectories that have less likelihood of being generated by an updated policy model. To address these issues, we introduce Self-Reviewing and Alignment (SeRA), a cost-efficient and effective method that can be readily combined with existing DAAs. SeRA comprises of two components: (1) sample selection using implicit reward margins, which helps alleviate over-fitting to some undesired features, and (2) preference bootstrapping using implicit rewards to augment preference data with updated policy models in a cost-efficient manner. Extensive experimentation, including some on instruction-following tasks, demonstrate the effectiveness and generality of SeRA in training LLMs on offline preference datasets with DAAs.

Beyond correlation: The impact of human uncertainty in measuring the effectiveness of automatic evaluation and LLM-as-a-judge

The effectiveness of automatic evaluation of generative models is typically measured by comparing it to human evaluation using correlation metrics. However, metrics like Krippendorff's $\alpha$ and Randolph's $\kappa$, originally designed to measure the reliability of human labeling, make assumptions about human behavior and the labeling process. In this paper, we show how *relying on a single aggregate correlation score* can obscure fundamental differences between human behavior and automatic evaluation methods, including LLM-as-a-Judge. Specifically, we demonstrate that when the proportion of samples with variation or uncertainty in human labels (gathered during human evaluation) is relatively high, machine labels (generated by automatic evaluation methods) may superficially appear to have similar or better correlation with the human majority label compared to human-to-human (HH) correlation. This can create the misleading impression that automatic evaluation is accurate enough to approximate the human majority label. However, as the proportion of samples with consistent human labels increases, the correlation between machine labels and human majority labels declines, falling below HH correlation. Based on these findings, we first propose stratifying results by human label uncertainty to provide a more robust analysis of automatic evaluation performance. Second, recognizing that uncertainty and variation are inherent in perception-based human evaluations, such as those involving attitudes or preferences, we introduce a new metric - *binned Jensen-Shannon Divergence for perception* for such scenarios to better measure the effectiveness of automatic evaluations. Third, we present visualization techniques -- *perception charts*, to compare the strengths and limitations of automatic evaluation and to contextualize correlation measures appropriately

DistiLLM: Towards Streamlined Distillation for Large Language Models

Knowledge distillation (KD) is widely used for compressing a teacher model to a smaller student model, reducing its inference cost and memory footprint while preserving model capabilities. However, current KD methods for auto-regressive sequence models (e.g., large language models) suffer from missing a standardized objective function. Moreover, the recent use of student-generated outputs to address training-inference mismatches has significantly escalated computational costs. To tackle these issues, we introduce DistiLLM, a more effective and efficient KD framework for auto-regressive language models. DistiLLM comprises two components: (1) a novel skew Kullback-Leibler divergence loss, where we unveil and leverage its theoretical properties, and (2) an adaptive off-policy approach designed to enhance the efficiency in utilizing student-generated outputs. Extensive experiments, including instruction-following tasks, demonstrate the effectiveness of DistiLLM in building high-performing student models while achieving up to 4.3$\times$ speedup compared to recent KD methods.

Improving Adaptability and Generalizability of Efficient Transfer Learning for Vision-Language Models

Vision-Language Models (VLMs) like CLIP have demonstrated remarkable applicability across a variety of downstream tasks, including zero-shot image classification. Recently, the use of prompts or adapters for efficient transfer learning has gained significant attention for effectively adapting to downstream tasks. However, the roles of vision and text prompts, as well as adapters in terms of generalization and transfer difficulty, have been overlooked, limiting performance on unseen tasks. In this paper, we empirically analyze how VLMs behave when using vision and text prompts, adapters, and a combination of these components, marking a novel exploration by our study. Our observations find that utilizing vision prompts for class separability and text adapters for task adaptation is crucial for adaptability and generalizability. Moreover, to improve generalization across every domain, we propose an adaptive ensemble method that effectively combines the general knowledge of VLMs with task-specific knowledge according to transfer difficulty. Upon experimenting with extensive benchmarks, our method consistently outperforms all baselines, particularly on unseen tasks, demonstrating the effectiveness of our proposed approach.