Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

On the Discussion of Large Language Models: Symmetry of Agents and Interplay with Prompts

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2311.07076 v1 pith:RQE67EQ5 submitted 2023-11-13 cs.CL

On the Discussion of Large Language Models: Symmetry of Agents and Interplay with Prompts

classification cs.CL
keywords discussionmulti-agentlanguagelargemechanismspromptsagentsempirical
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Two ways has been discussed to unlock the reasoning capability of a large language model. The first one is prompt engineering and the second one is to combine the multiple inferences of large language models, or the multi-agent discussion. Theoretically, this paper justifies the multi-agent discussion mechanisms from the symmetry of agents. Empirically, this paper reports the empirical results of the interplay of prompts and discussion mechanisms, revealing the empirical state-of-the-art performance of complex multi-agent mechanisms can be approached by carefully developed prompt engineering. This paper also proposes a scalable discussion mechanism based on conquer and merge, providing a simple multi-agent discussion solution with simple prompts but state-of-the-art performance.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Multi-Agent Debate Strategies: Survey, Taxonomy, and Challenges

    cs.SE 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0

    A systematic review of 141 papers derives a three-axis taxonomy of multi-agent debate design (participants, interaction, agreement) and shows the field has converged on a narrow default pattern.