Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

RedDebate: Safer Responses Through Multi-Agent Red Teaming Debates

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 2506.11083 v3 pith:AFD7XNBY submitted 2025-06-04 cs.CL

RedDebate: Safer Responses Through Multi-Agent Red Teaming Debates

classification cs.CL
keywords debatereddebatellmsmulti-agentsafetyunsafeacrossautomated
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

We introduce RedDebate, a novel multi-agent debate framework that provides the foundation for Large Language Models (LLMs) to identify and mitigate their unsafe behaviours. AI safety approaches often rely on costly human evaluation or isolated single-model assessment, both constrained by scalability and prone to oversight failures. RedDebate employs collaborative argumentation among multiple LLMs across diverse debate scenarios, enabling them to critically evaluate one another's reasoning and systematically uncover unsafe failure modes through fully automated red-teaming. To support this, we propose designing distinct long-term memory modules that preserve safety-relevant insights from debate interactions and leverage them during subsequent inference, facilitating continuous refinement of model behaviour. Empirical evaluation on safety benchmarks across a diverse set of models demonstrates that RedDebate substantially reduces unsafe outputs. While debate alone allows LLMs to refine their behaviour, the addition of memory yields further error reductions. To the best of our knowledge, RedDebate is the first fully automated framework to unify multi-agent debate and red-teaming to progressively enhance LLM safety without human intervention.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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.

  2. Heterogeneous Agent Cohorts for Safe Open-Ended Exploration with Runtime Constraint Memory

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Role-specialized LLM cohorts with MCTS-compiled Scars and CAS bandwidth control reach remote sandbox targets with zero executed breaches and lower token cost than homogeneous debate.

  3. AgenticEval: Toward Agentic and Self-Evolving Safety Evaluation of Large Language Models

    cs.AI 2025-09 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    AgenticEval is a multi-agent framework that ingests unstructured policies to generate and self-evolve comprehensive safety benchmarks for LLMs, with experiments showing declining safety rates as tests harden.