Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

Combating Adversarial Attacks with Multi-Agent Debate

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 2401.05998 v1 pith:7IXEV34H submitted 2024-01-11 cs.CL cs.AI

classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords modelsmulti-agentdebateadversariallanguageattacksarxivcapable
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

While state-of-the-art language models have achieved impressive results, they remain susceptible to inference-time adversarial attacks, such as adversarial prompts generated by red teams arXiv:2209.07858. One approach proposed to improve the general quality of language model generations is multi-agent debate, where language models self-evaluate through discussion and feedback arXiv:2305.14325. We implement multi-agent debate between current state-of-the-art language models and evaluate models' susceptibility to red team attacks in both single- and multi-agent settings. We find that multi-agent debate can reduce model toxicity when jailbroken or less capable models are forced to debate with non-jailbroken or more capable models. We also find marginal improvements through the general usage of multi-agent interactions. We further perform adversarial prompt content classification via embedding clustering, and analyze the susceptibility of different models to different types of attack topics.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Heterogeneous LLM Debate Under Adversarial Peers: Honest Gains, Replacement Costs, and Resilience

    cs.CR 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    Honest heterogeneous peers in LLM debates lower harmful revision rates (e.g., 89% to 35%), while adversarial peers raise them (to 90%), and provide defense even against same-family adversaries.

  2. Even More Deception: Objective Misalignment in Mixed-Motive LLM Multi-Agent Systems

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Changing one LLM agent's secret objective in Werewolf lowers its team's win rate and changes its reasoning, while its public chat stays deceptively normal.

  3. MARS$^2$: Scaling Multi-Agent Tree Search via Reinforcement Learning for Code Generation

    cs.AI 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    MARS² integrates multi-agent collaboration with tree-structured search in RL to boost code generation by increasing exploratory diversity and using path-level group advantages for credit assignment.

  4. Large Language Model Agent: A Survey on Methodology, Applications and Challenges

    cs.CL 2025-03 accept novelty 3.0 of 10

    A survey that deconstructs LLM agent systems via a methodology-centered taxonomy linking design principles to emergent behaviors, applications, and challenges.

Pith tools