Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

Can LLMs Speak For Diverse People? Tuning LLMs via Debate to Generate Controllable Controversial Statements

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 2402.10614 v2 pith:JZIGL7VS submitted 2024-02-16 cs.CL cs.AIcs.LG

classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.LG
keywords llmsstatementscontrollabilitycontroversialdebategeneratedebatunediverse
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Making LLMs speak for different, especially minority groups of people, and generate statements supporting their diverse or even controversial perspectives is critical to creating an inclusive environment. However, existing LLMs lack sufficient controllability to the stance of their generated content, which often contains inconsistent, neutral, or biased statements. In this paper, we improve the controllability of LLMs in generating statements supporting an argument the user defined in the prompt. We find that multi-round debates between two LLMs with opposite stances generate higher-quality and more salient statements for each, which are important training data to improve the controllability of LLMs. Motivated by this, we develop a novel debate & tuning (DEBATUNE) pipeline finetuning LLMs to generate the statements obtained via debate. To examine DEBATUNE, we curate the largest dataset of debate topics so far, which covers 710 controversial topics and corresponding arguments for each topic. Evaluations by the GPT-4 judge with a novel controversy controllability metric show that LLMs' capability of generating diverse perspectives is significantly improved by DEBATUNE. Moreover, such controllability can be generalized to unseen topics, generating high-quality statements supporting controversial arguments.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. SGIC: A Self-Guided Iterative Calibration Framework for RAG

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    SGIC feeds a model's own uncertainty scores back into its prompt for several calibration rounds and improves RAG accuracy on HotpotQA, NQ, and GSM8K.

  2. Revealing Political Bias in LLMs through Structured Multi-Agent Debate

    cs.AI 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    LLM debate agents with neutral personas lean Democratic, Republican personas drift toward neutral, gender awareness alters stances, and homogeneous groups can show echo chamber attitude intensification.

  3. Software Engineering for Large Language Models: Research Status, Challenges and the Road Ahead

    cs.SE 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A literature review organizes LLM development into a six-phase software engineering lifecycle and identifies challenges and research directions for each phase.

Pith tools