When Two LLMs Debate, Both Think They'll Win

Can LLMs accurately adjust their confidence when facing opposition? Building on previous studies measuring calibration on static fact-based question-answering tasks, we evaluate Large Language Models (LLMs) in a dynamic, adversarial debate setting, uniquely combining two realistic factors: (a) a multi-turn format requiring models to update beliefs as new information emerges, and (b) a zero-sum structure to control for task-related uncertainty, since mutual high-confidence claims imply systematic overconfidence. We organized 60 three-round policy debates among ten state-of-the-art LLMs, with models privately rating their confidence (0-100) in winning after each round. We observed five concerning patterns: (1) Systematic overconfidence: models began debates with average initial confidence of 72.9% vs. a rational 50% baseline. (2) Confidence escalation: rather than reducing confidence as debates progressed, debaters increased their win probabilities, averaging 83% by the final round. (3) Mutual overestimation: in 61.7% of debates, both sides simultaneously claimed >=75% probability of victory, a logical impossibility. (4) Persistent self-debate bias: models debating identical copies increased confidence from 64.1% to 75.2%; even when explicitly informed their chance of winning was exactly 50%, confidence still rose (from 50.0% to 57.1%). (5) Misaligned private reasoning: models' private scratchpad thoughts sometimes differed from their public confidence ratings, raising concerns about faithfulness of chain-of-thought reasoning. These results suggest LLMs lack the ability to accurately self-assess or update their beliefs in dynamic, multi-turn tasks; a major concern as LLM outputs are deployed without careful review in assistant roles or agentic settings.

Two LLMs debate, both are certain they've won

Can LLMs accurately adjust their confidence when facing opposition? Building on previous studies measuring calibration on static fact-based question-answering tasks, we evaluate Large Language Models (LLMs) in a dynamic, adversarial debate setting, uniquely combining two realistic factors: (a) a multi-turn format requiring models to update beliefs as new information emerges, and (b) a zero-sum structure to control for task-related uncertainty, since mutual high-confidence claims imply systematic overconfidence. We organized 60 three-round policy debates among ten state-of-the-art LLMs, with models privately rating their confidence (0-100) in winning after each round. We observed five concerning patterns: (1) Systematic overconfidence: models began debates with average initial confidence of 72.9% vs. a rational 50% baseline. (2) Confidence escalation: rather than reducing confidence as debates progressed, debaters increased their win probabilities, averaging 83% by the final round. (3) Mutual overestimation: in 61.7% of debates, both sides simultaneously claimed >=75% probability of victory, a logical impossibility. (4) Persistent self-debate bias: models debating identical copies increased confidence from 64.1% to 75.2%; even when explicitly informed their chance of winning was exactly 50%, confidence still rose (from 50.0% to 57.1%). (5) Misaligned private reasoning: models' private scratchpad thoughts sometimes differed from their public confidence ratings, raising concerns about faithfulness of chain-of-thought reasoning. These results suggest LLMs lack the ability to accurately self-assess or update their beliefs in dynamic, multi-turn tasks; a major concern as LLM outputs are deployed without careful review in assistant roles or agentic settings.

RAGEN: Understanding Self-Evolution in LLM Agents via Multi-Turn Reinforcement Learning

Training large language models (LLMs) as interactive agents presents unique challenges including long-horizon decision making and interacting with stochastic environment feedback. While reinforcement learning (RL) has enabled progress in static tasks, multi-turn agent RL training remains underexplored. We propose StarPO (State-Thinking-Actions-Reward Policy Optimization), a general framework for trajectory-level agent RL, and introduce RAGEN, a modular system for training and evaluating LLM agents. Our study on three stylized environments reveals three core findings. First, our agent RL training shows a recurring mode of Echo Trap where reward variance cliffs and gradient spikes; we address this with StarPO-S, a stabilized variant with trajectory filtering, critic incorporation, and decoupled clipping. Second, we find the shaping of RL rollouts would benefit from diverse initial states, medium interaction granularity and more frequent sampling. Third, we show that without fine-grained, reasoning-aware reward signals, agent reasoning hardly emerge through multi-turn RL and they may show shallow strategies or hallucinated thoughts. Code and environments are available at https://github.com/RAGEN-AI/RAGEN.

Fairness in Large Language Models in Three Hour

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable success across various domains but often lack fairness considerations, potentially leading to discriminatory outcomes against marginalized populations. Unlike fairness in traditional machine learning, fairness in LLMs involves unique backgrounds, taxonomies, and fulfillment techniques. This tutorial provides a systematic overview of recent advances in the literature concerning fair LLMs, beginning with real-world case studies to introduce LLMs, followed by an analysis of bias causes therein. The concept of fairness in LLMs is then explored, summarizing the strategies for evaluating bias and the algorithms designed to promote fairness. Additionally, resources for assessing bias in LLMs, including toolkits and datasets, are compiled, and current research challenges and open questions in the field are discussed. The repository is available at \url{https://github.com/LavinWong/Fairness-in-Large-Language-Models}.