Adversarial Multi-Agent Evaluation of Large Language Models through Iterative Debates

This paper explores optimal architectures for evaluating the outputs of large language models (LLMs) using LLMs themselves. We propose a novel framework that interprets LLMs as advocates within an ensemble of interacting agents, allowing them to defend their answers and reach conclusions through a judge and jury system. This approach offers a more dynamic and comprehensive evaluation process compared to traditional human-based assessments or automated metrics. We discuss the motivation behind this framework, its key components, and comparative advantages. We also present a probabilistic model to evaluate the error reduction achieved by iterative advocate systems. Finally, we outline experiments to validate the effectiveness of multi-advocate architectures and discuss future research directions.