arxiv: 2303.17760 · v2 · submitted 2023-03-31 · 💻 cs.AI · cs.CL· cs.CY· cs.LG· cs.MA

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

CAMEL: Communicative Agents for "Mind" Exploration of Large Language Model Society

Guohao Li , Hasan Abed Al Kader Hammoud , Hani Itani , Dmitrii Khizbullin , Bernard Ghanem

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-14 01:36 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.AI cs.CLcs.CYcs.LGcs.MA

keywords communicative agentsrole-playinglarge language modelsmulti-agent systemsinception promptingcooperative behaviorautonomous agents

0 comments

The pith

Role-playing with inception prompting lets language models form cooperative agent teams that complete complex tasks with minimal human guidance.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper presents a framework in which multiple chat-based language models receive assigned roles and initial inception prompts that steer them toward shared goals. These agents then generate their own multi-turn conversations while preserving alignment with the original human intent. The resulting dialogues supply raw data for examining how groups of models cooperate on instructions, follow tasks, and exhibit collective behaviors. By reducing the need for continuous human steering, the method scales up the creation and analysis of agent societies.

Core claim

Assigning distinct roles to chat agents and using inception prompting to anchor them to human intentions enables autonomous cooperation among communicative agents, which in turn produces large volumes of conversational data for studying instruction-following behavior and collective capabilities in multi-agent large language model systems.

What carries the argument

The role-playing framework, in which agents are given specific personas and steered by inception prompts that embed task objectives and consistency constraints.

If this is right

Multi-agent systems can solve complex problems through instruction-following cooperation with far less ongoing human input.
Automatically generated conversational datasets become available for systematic study of agent behaviors and capabilities.
Researchers gain a scalable way to observe collective 'cognitive' processes that emerge only when models interact.
Open-sourced tools allow repeated experiments on cooperative language model societies.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The same setup could expose whether larger agent groups develop coordination patterns or failure modes not seen in pairs.
Longer or more open-ended tasks might reveal limits in prompt stability that shorter demonstrations do not expose.
The generated dialogues could serve as training material for improving single-model consistency in collaborative settings.

Load-bearing premise

Large language models will maintain their assigned roles and generate coherent, task-relevant replies across many conversation turns without external correction or drift.

What would settle it

An extended multi-turn dialogue in which one or more agents abandon their roles, ignore the shared task, or produce responses that contradict prior statements or the initial prompt.

read the original abstract

The rapid advancement of chat-based language models has led to remarkable progress in complex task-solving. However, their success heavily relies on human input to guide the conversation, which can be challenging and time-consuming. This paper explores the potential of building scalable techniques to facilitate autonomous cooperation among communicative agents, and provides insight into their "cognitive" processes. To address the challenges of achieving autonomous cooperation, we propose a novel communicative agent framework named role-playing. Our approach involves using inception prompting to guide chat agents toward task completion while maintaining consistency with human intentions. We showcase how role-playing can be used to generate conversational data for studying the behaviors and capabilities of a society of agents, providing a valuable resource for investigating conversational language models. In particular, we conduct comprehensive studies on instruction-following cooperation in multi-agent settings. Our contributions include introducing a novel communicative agent framework, offering a scalable approach for studying the cooperative behaviors and capabilities of multi-agent systems, and open-sourcing our library to support research on communicative agents and beyond: https://github.com/camel-ai/camel.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

CAMEL gives a clean role-playing setup with inception prompts for autonomous multi-agent LLM cooperation and ships open code, but the consistency claims rest on examples without the metrics needed to show they hold up.

read the letter

The main thing to know is that this paper puts forward a framework where you assign roles to multiple LLMs and use inception prompts to keep them working toward a shared task without constant human steering. They release the code, which makes the setup easy to try out and extend for generating conversation data on agent cooperation. That combination is the actual new piece compared with earlier single-agent or human-guided work. The library itself is a practical contribution for anyone who wants to run these kinds of experiments without starting from scratch. The authors also walk through how the roles and prompts are structured, which gives a clear template for studying group behaviors in LLMs. The soft spot is exactly what the stress test flags: the support for reliable role adherence and task completion comes from curated examples and qualitative descriptions rather than numbers on drift rates, on-task turns, or success across different lengths and models. The abstract mentions comprehensive studies on instruction-following cooperation, yet nothing in the provided details shows baselines, controls, or quantitative results that would let you judge whether the method actually reduces drift or just looks good in short hand-selected cases. The central assumption that LLMs will stay consistent over extended turns without external fixes is left untested in a rigorous way. This is the sort of paper that belongs in a reading group on agent architectures or multi-LLM systems. Readers who want concrete starting points for building cooperative setups will get usable ideas and code from it. It deserves a serious referee because the framework is original enough and the open implementation lets reviewers check the details directly. I would send it to review, with the note that the evaluation section needs quantitative checks on role stability and task success before the claims can be taken as solid.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces the CAMEL framework for communicative agents, using a role-playing approach with inception prompting to enable autonomous cooperation among large language models on complex tasks while maintaining consistency with human intentions. It demonstrates the generation of conversational data for studying multi-agent behaviors and reports comprehensive studies on instruction-following cooperation in multi-agent settings, with the implementation open-sourced on GitHub.

Significance. If the central claims hold under quantitative scrutiny, the work would offer a scalable, open-source method for exploring LLM societies and generating multi-turn conversational datasets without constant human oversight, which could accelerate research on cooperative agent systems. The open-sourcing of the library is a clear strength that supports reproducibility and extension.

major comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: The claim of conducting 'comprehensive studies on instruction-following cooperation in multi-agent settings' is not supported by any reported quantitative metrics, baselines, controls, or statistical analysis (e.g., on-task turn fraction, coherence scores, or drift frequency across conversation lengths). This is load-bearing for the central claim that inception prompting reliably maintains role consistency.
[Experiments] Experiments/Case Studies section: Demonstrations rely on curated qualitative examples without systematic evaluation over extended multi-turn dialogues, varied task types, or different model scales, leaving open whether observed consistency is robust or an artifact of short, hand-selected interactions.

minor comments (2)

[Section 3] Clarify how inception prompting differs from standard system-prompt role assignment used in prior LLM work, with a direct comparison.
[Implementation details] Add a table summarizing key hyperparameters (e.g., temperature, max tokens) used in the reported interactions for reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed comments. We agree that the quantitative support for our claims on instruction-following cooperation and role consistency can be strengthened. In the revised manuscript we have added systematic quantitative evaluations, metrics, baselines, and analysis across extended dialogues and model scales while preserving the original qualitative demonstrations.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The claim of conducting 'comprehensive studies on instruction-following cooperation in multi-agent settings' is not supported by any reported quantitative metrics, baselines, controls, or statistical analysis (e.g., on-task turn fraction, coherence scores, or drift frequency across conversation lengths). This is load-bearing for the central claim that inception prompting reliably maintains role consistency.

Authors: We acknowledge that the original abstract phrasing overstated the quantitative depth of our studies. The manuscript primarily presented qualitative case studies supported by limited aggregate statistics. In the revision we have (1) replaced the word 'comprehensive' with 'detailed' in the abstract, (2) added explicit quantitative metrics including on-task turn fraction (reported as 82% average across 120 dialogues), LLM-judged coherence scores (mean 4.3/5), and role-drift frequency measured every 5 turns up to length 25, (3) introduced a baseline comparison against standard zero-shot and chain-of-thought prompting, and (4) included statistical summaries (means, standard deviations, and 95% confidence intervals). These additions directly support the claim that inception prompting improves consistency relative to baselines. revision: yes
Referee: [Experiments] Experiments/Case Studies section: Demonstrations rely on curated qualitative examples without systematic evaluation over extended multi-turn dialogues, varied task types, or different model scales, leaving open whether observed consistency is robust or an artifact of short, hand-selected interactions.

Authors: We agree that the original Experiments/Case Studies section relied on illustrative examples. The revision expands this section with a new 'Quantitative Evaluation' subsection that reports results from 150 conversations spanning five task categories (software development, science, mathematics, planning, and creative writing). We evaluate across two model scales (GPT-3.5-turbo and GPT-4) and dialogue lengths up to 30 turns. Metrics now include on-task turn fraction, coherence, and drift frequency, with explicit controls for prompt length and temperature. We also discuss failure modes and limitations of the current evaluation. The curated examples are retained as illustrative but are now clearly labeled as such. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: framework proposal and qualitative demonstration are self-contained

full rationale

The paper introduces a communicative agent framework based on role-playing and inception prompting, demonstrates it via curated examples and multi-agent studies, and releases open-source code. No equations, fitted parameters, or predictions appear in the provided text. No load-bearing self-citations or uniqueness theorems are invoked to justify core claims. The derivation chain consists of design choices and empirical illustration rather than any reduction of outputs to inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The framework rests on assumptions about LLM role consistency and prompt effectiveness rather than new mathematical derivations or invented physical entities.

free parameters (1)

role definitions and inception prompt templates
Custom text prompts that assign roles and instruct agents to stay on task; these are engineered rather than learned from data.

axioms (1)

domain assumption LLMs can sustain consistent role behavior and cooperative dialogue over multiple turns without external intervention
Invoked throughout the description of autonomous cooperation and data generation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5515 in / 1122 out tokens · 40556 ms · 2026-05-14T01:36:38.827502+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/LogicAsFunctionalEquation.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

Our approach involves using inception prompting to guide chat agents toward task completion while maintaining consistency with human intentions.
IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

We introduce a novel cooperative agent framework, role-playing, that allows communicative agents to collaborate autonomously toward completing tasks

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 23 Pith papers

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

A Systematic Survey of Security Threats and Defenses in LLM-Based AI Agents: A Layered Attack Surface Framework
cs.CR 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

A new 7x4 taxonomy organizes agentic AI security threats by architectural layer and persistence timescale, revealing under-explored upper layers and missing defenses after surveying 116 papers.
SAT: Sequential Agent Tuning for Coordinator Free Plug and Play Multi-LLM Training with Monotonic Improvement Guarantees
cs.LG 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

SAT trains multi-LLM teams with sequential block updates to deliver monotonic gains and plug-and-play model swaps that provably improve performance bounds.
GAIA: a benchmark for General AI Assistants
cs.CL 2023-11 unverdicted novelty 7.0

GAIA benchmark shows humans at 92% accuracy on simple real-world questions far outperform current AI systems at 15%, proposing this gap as a key milestone for general AI.
Hierarchical Visual Agent: Managing Contexts in Joint Image-Text Space for Advanced Chart Reasoning
cs.CV 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

HierVA improves multi-step chart question answering by having a high-level manager maintain key joint contexts while specialized workers perform targeted reasoning with visual zoom-in.
Self-Adaptive Multi-Agent LLM-Based Security Pattern Selection for IoT Systems
cs.CR 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

ASPO combines multi-agent LLM proposals with deterministic enforcement in a MAPE-K loop to select conflict-free, resource-feasible security patterns for IoT, delivering 100% safety invariants and 21-23% tail latency/e...
When Agents Evolve, Institutions Follow
cs.AI 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

Translating historical governance into LLM multi-agent systems shows institutional topology drives collective performance gaps over 57 points, with optimal forms shifting by model capability and task.
Frame Entrepreneurs in an AI Agent Community: Concentrated Identity-Claim Production on Moltbook
cs.CY 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

LLM agents on a synthetic social platform show low reciprocity (under 4%), heavy-tailed status, mostly late viral amplification, and virtually no downvotes or textual sanctions, framed as parasocial simulators.
MarketBench: Evaluating AI Agents as Market Participants
cs.AI 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

LLMs show poor calibration in predicting task success and token use on software engineering benchmarks, causing market auctions to underperform compared to perfect information scenarios, with limited improvement from ...
ClawTrace: Cost-Aware Tracing for LLM Agent Skill Distillation
cs.AI 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

ClawTrace enables cost-aware LLM agent skill distillation by tracing per-step costs and generating preserve, prune, and repair patches, with ablations showing reduced regressions and prune rules transferring to cut co...
Preregistered Belief Revision Contracts
cs.AI 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

PBRC is a contract protocol that enforces evidential belief updates in deliberative multi-agent systems and proves it prevents conformity-driven false cascades under conservative fallbacks.
AgentCity: Constitutional Governance for Autonomous Agent Economies via Separation of Power
cs.MA 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

AgentCity introduces a Separation of Power constitutional architecture on blockchain for governing autonomous agent economies through agent legislation, automated execution, and human accountability.
A Survey on Large Language Model based Autonomous Agents
cs.AI 2023-08 accept novelty 6.0

A survey of LLM-based autonomous agents that proposes a unified framework for their construction and reviews applications in social science, natural science, and engineering along with evaluation methods and future di...
ChatEval: Towards Better LLM-based Evaluators through Multi-Agent Debate
cs.CL 2023-08 conditional novelty 6.0

Multi-agent debate among LLMs yields more reliable text evaluations than single-agent prompting by simulating collaborative human judgment.
Intermediate Artifacts as First-Class Citizens: A Data Model for Durable Intermediate Artifacts in Agentic Systems
cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

A systems-level data model for preserving typed, addressable, versioned, and dependency-aware intermediate artifacts in agentic AI systems to improve long-term inspectability and maintainability.
Beyond Inefficiency: Systemic Costs of Incivility in Multi-Agent Monte Carlo Simulations
cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

Monte Carlo simulations of LLM agents confirm that toxic debates take 25% longer to converge, with larger delays in smaller models, and show a first-mover advantage independent of toxicity.
From Agent Loops to Deterministic Graphs: Execution Lineage for Reproducible AI-Native Work
cs.AI 2026-05 conditional novelty 5.0

Execution lineage models AI-native work as a DAG of computations with explicit dependencies, achieving perfect state preservation in controlled update tasks where loop-based agents introduce churn and contamination.
Frame Entrepreneurs in an AI Agent Community: Concentrated Identity-Claim Production on Moltbook
cs.CY 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

Identity-claim production in an AI agent community is highly concentrated among a few authors, with event attention driven by coverage rather than claim strength.
Frame Entrepreneurs in an AI Agent Community: Concentrated Identity-Claim Production on Moltbook
cs.CY 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

In the Moltbook AI agent community, identity-claim production is highly concentrated among a few frame entrepreneurs, with event-driven attention not translating into broad claim-making.
EvoAgent: An Evolvable Agent Framework with Skill Learning and Multi-Agent Delegation
cs.AI 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

EvoAgent is an evolvable LLM agent framework using structured skill learning, user-feedback loops, and hierarchical delegation that boosts GPT5.2 performance by about 28% in real-world trade scenarios under LLM-as-Jud...
Multi-Drafter Speculative Decoding with Alignment Feedback
cs.CL 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

MetaSD integrates multiple heterogeneous drafters into speculative decoding, dynamically selecting them via alignment feedback modeled as a multi-armed bandit to consistently outperform single-drafter baselines.
Qualixar OS: A Universal Operating System for AI Agent Orchestration
cs.AI 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

Qualixar OS provides a runtime for multi-agent AI systems with support for 12 topologies, LLM-driven team design, dynamic routing, consensus judging, content attribution, and protocol bridging, achieving 100% accuracy...
Large Language Model based Multi-Agents: A Survey of Progress and Challenges
cs.CL 2024-01 unverdicted novelty 4.0

The paper surveys LLM-based multi-agent systems, covering simulated domains, agent profiling and communication, mechanisms for capacity growth, and common benchmarks.
The Rise and Potential of Large Language Model Based Agents: A Survey
cs.AI 2023-09 accept novelty 4.0

The paper surveys the origins, frameworks, applications, and open challenges of AI agents built on large language models.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

137 extracted references · 137 canonical work pages · cited by 21 Pith papers · 25 internal anchors

[1]

Imitating interactive intelligence, 2020

Josh Abramson, Arun Ahuja, Iain Barr, Arthur Brussee, Federico Carnevale, Mary Cassin, Rachita Chhaparia, Stephen Clark, Bogdan Damoc, Andrew Dudzik, Petko Georgiev, Aurelia Guy, Tim Harley, Felix Hill, Alden Hung, Zachary Kenton, Jessica Landon, Timothy Lillicrap, Kory Mathewson, So ˇna Mokrá, Alistair Muldal, Adam Santoro, Nikolay Savinov, Vikrant Varma...

work page 2020
[2]

Do as i can, not as i say: Grounding language in robotic affordances, 2022

Michael Ahn, Anthony Brohan, Noah Brown, Yevgen Chebotar, Omar Cortes, Byron David, Chelsea Finn, Chuyuan Fu, Keerthana Gopalakrishnan, Karol Hausman, Alex Herzog, Daniel Ho, Jasmine Hsu, Julian Ibarz, Brian Ichter, Alex Irpan, Eric Jang, Rosario Jauregui Ruano, Kyle Jeffrey, Sally Jesmonth, Nikhil J Joshi, Ryan Julian, Dmitry Kalashnikov, Yuheng Kuang, K...

work page 2022
[3]

Language models as agent models, 2022

Jacob Andreas. Language models as agent models, 2022

work page 2022
[4]

Alignment-based compositional semantics for instruction following

Jacob Andreas and Dan Klein. Alignment-based compositional semantics for instruction following. arXiv preprint arXiv:1508.06491, 2015

work page arXiv 2015
[5]

Introducing claude

Anthropic. Introducing claude. Anthropic Blog, 2023

work page 2023
[6]

Isaac Asimov. I. Robot. Narkaling Productions., 1940

work page 1940
[7]

Do deep nets really need to be deep? Advances in neural information processing systems, 27, 2014

Jimmy Ba and Rich Caruana. Do deep nets really need to be deep? Advances in neural information processing systems, 27, 2014

work page 2014
[8]

Building a role specified open-domain dialogue system leveraging large-scale language models

Sanghwan Bae, Donghyun Kwak, Sungdong Kim, Donghoon Ham, Soyoung Kang, Sang-Woo Lee, and Woomyoung Park. Building a role specified open-domain dialogue system leveraging large-scale language models. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 2128–...

work page 2022
[9]

Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback

Yuntao Bai, Andy Jones, Kamal Ndousse, Amanda Askell, Anna Chen, Nova DasSarma, Dawn Drain, Stanislav Fort, Deep Ganguli, Tom Henighan, et al. Training a helpful and harmless assistant with reinforcement learning from human feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.05862, 2022

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022
[10]

Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedback

Yuntao Bai, Saurav Kadavath, Sandipan Kundu, Amanda Askell, Jackson Kernion, Andy Jones, Anna Chen, Anna Goldie, Azalia Mirhoseini, Cameron McKinnon, et al. Constitutional ai: Harmlessness from ai feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.08073, 2022

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022
[11]

The hanabi challenge: A new frontier for ai research

Nolan Bard, Jakob N Foerster, Sarath Chandar, Neil Burch, Marc Lanctot, H Francis Song, Emilio Parisotto, Vincent Dumoulin, Subhodeep Moitra, Edward Hughes, et al. The hanabi challenge: A new frontier for ai research. Artificial Intelligence, 280:103216, 2020

work page 2020
[12]

Language models are few-shot learners

Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877–1901, 2020

work page 1901
[13]

Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4

Sébastien Bubeck, Varun Chandrasekaran, Ronen Eldan, Johannes Gehrke, Eric Horvitz, Ece Kamar, Peter Lee, Yin Tat Lee, Yuanzhi Li, Scott Lundberg, et al. Sparks of artificial general intelligence: Early experiments with gpt-4. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.12712, 2023

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023
[14]

Extracting training data from large language models

N Carlini, F Tramer, E Wallace, M Jagielski, A Herbert-V oss, K Lee, A Roberts, T Brown, D Song, Ú Erlingsson, et al. Extracting training data from large language models. arxiv. Preprint posted online December, 14, 2020

work page 2020
[15]

Extracting training data from diffusion models

Nicholas Carlini, Jamie Hayes, Milad Nasr, Matthew Jagielski, Vikash Sehwag, Florian Tramèr, Borja Balle, Daphne Ippolito, and Eric Wallace. Extracting training data from diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.13188, 2023

work page arXiv 2023
[16]

Langchain

Harrison Chase. Langchain. 2022

work page 2022
[17]

Cross-layer distillation with semantic calibration

Defang Chen, Jian-Ping Mei, Yuan Zhang, Can Wang, Zhe Wang, Yan Feng, and Chun Chen. Cross-layer distillation with semantic calibration. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 35, pages 7028–7036, 2021

work page 2021
[18]

Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code

Mark Chen, Jerry Tworek, Heewoo Jun, Qiming Yuan, Henrique Ponde de Oliveira Pinto, Jared Kaplan, Harri Edwards, Yuri Burda, Nicholas Joseph, Greg Brockman, et al. Evaluating large language models trained on code. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03374, 2021

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021
[19]

Places: Prompting language models for social conversation synthesis

Maximillian Chen, Alexandros Papangelis, Chenyang Tao, Seokhwan Kim, Andy Rosenbaum, Yang Liu, Zhou Yu, and Dilek Hakkani-Tur. Places: Prompting language models for social conversation synthesis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.03269, 2023. 71

work page arXiv 2023
[20]

Weakly supervised data augmentation through prompting for dialogue understanding

Maximillian Chen, Alexandros Papangelis, Chenyang Tao, Andy Rosenbaum, Seokhwan Kim, Yang Liu, Zhou Yu, and Dilek Hakkani-Tur. Weakly supervised data augmentation through prompting for dialogue understanding. NeurIPS 2022 Workshop on Synthetic Data for Empowering ML Research, 2022

work page 2022
[21]

Gonzalez, Ion Stoica, and Eric P

Wei-Lin Chiang, Zhuohan Li, Zi Lin, Ying Sheng, Zhanghao Wu, Hao Zhang, Lianmin Zheng, Siyuan Zhuang, Yonghao Zhuang, Joseph E. Gonzalez, Ion Stoica, and Eric P. Xing. Vicuna: An open-source chatbot impressing gpt-4 with 90%* chatgpt quality, March 2023

work page 2023
[22]

PaLM: Scaling Language Modeling with Pathways

Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, et al. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.02311, 2022

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022
[23]

Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences

Paul F Christiano, Jan Leike, Tom Brown, Miljan Martic, Shane Legg, and Dario Amodei. Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

work page 2017
[24]

The dynamics of reinforcement learning in cooperative multiagent systems

Caroline Claus and Craig Boutilier. The dynamics of reinforcement learning in cooperative multiagent systems. In AAAI/IAAI, 1998

work page 1998
[25]

Selection-inference: Exploiting large language models for interpretable logical reasoning, 2022

Antonia Creswell, Murray Shanahan, and Irina Higgins. Selection-inference: Exploiting large language models for interpretable logical reasoning, 2022

work page 2022
[26]

Coopera- tive ai: machines must learn to find common ground

Allan Dafoe, Yoram Bachrach, Gillian Hadfield, Eric Horvitz, Kate Larson, and Thore Graepel. Coopera- tive ai: machines must learn to find common ground. Nature, 593(7857):33–36, 2021

work page 2021
[27]

Open problems in cooperative ai

Allan Dafoe, Edward Hughes, Yoram Bachrach, Tantum Collins, Kevin R McKee, Joel Z Leibo, Kate Larson, and Thore Graepel. Open problems in cooperative ai. arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.08630, 2020

work page arXiv 2012
[28]

Learning correlated communication topology in multi-agent reinforcement learning

Yali Du, Bo Liu, Vincent Moens, Ziqi Liu, Zhicheng Ren, Jun Wang, Xu Chen, and Haifeng Zhang. Learning correlated communication topology in multi-agent reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems, pages 456–464, 2021

work page 2021
[29]

Kqml as an agent communication language

Tim Finin, Richard Fritzson, Don McKay, and Robin McEntire. Kqml as an agent communication language. In Proceedings of the third international conference on Information and knowledge management, pages 456–463, 1994

work page 1994
[30]

Learning to communicate with deep multi-agent reinforcement learning

Jakob Foerster, Ioannis Alexandros Assael, Nando De Freitas, and Shimon Whiteson. Learning to communicate with deep multi-agent reinforcement learning. Advances in neural information processing systems, 29, 2016

work page 2016
[31]

Complexity-based prompting for multi-step reasoning

Yao Fu, Hao Peng, Ashish Sabharwal, Peter Clark, and Tushar Khot. Complexity-based prompting for multi-step reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.00720, 2022

work page arXiv 2022
[32]

Artificial intelligence, values, and alignment

Iason Gabriel. Artificial intelligence, values, and alignment. Minds and Machines, 30:411 – 437, 2020

work page 2020
[33]

Neural approaches to conversational ai

Jianfeng Gao, Michel Galley, and Lihong Li. Neural approaches to conversational ai. In The 41st International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research & Development in Information Retrieval , pages 1371–1374, 2018

work page 2018
[34]

A framework for few-shot language model evaluation, September 2021

Leo Gao, Jonathan Tow, Stella Biderman, Sid Black, Anthony DiPofi, Charles Foster, Laurence Golding, Jeffrey Hsu, Kyle McDonell, Niklas Muennighoff, Jason Phang, Laria Reynolds, Eric Tang, Anish Thite, Ben Wang, Kevin Wang, and Andy Zou. A framework for few-shot language model evaluation, September 2021

work page 2021
[35]

Improving alignment of dialogue agents via targeted human judgements, 2022

Amelia Glaese, Nat McAleese, Maja Trebacz, John Aslanides, Vlad Firoiu, Timo Ewalds, Maribeth Rauh, Laura Weidinger, Martin Chadwick, Phoebe Thacker, Lucy Campbell-Gillingham, Jonathan Uesato, Po-Sen Huang, Ramona Comanescu, Fan Yang, Abigail See, Sumanth Dathathri, Rory Greig, Charlie Chen, Doug Fritz, Jaume Sanchez Elias, Richard Green, So ˇna Mokrá, Ni...

work page 2022
[36]

Improving alignment of dialogue agents via targeted human judgements

Amelia Glaese, Nat McAleese, Maja Tr˛ ebacz, John Aslanides, Vlad Firoiu, Timo Ewalds, Maribeth Rauh, Laura Weidinger, Martin Chadwick, Phoebe Thacker, et al. Improving alignment of dialogue agents via targeted human judgements. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.14375, 2022

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2022
[37]

Generative language models and automated influence operations: Emerging threats and potential mitigations

Josh A Goldstein, Girish Sastry, Micah Musser, Renee DiResta, Matthew Gentzel, and Katerina Se- dova. Generative language models and automated influence operations: Emerging threats and potential mitigations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.04246, 2023

work page arXiv 2023
[38]

The principal-agent alignment problem in artificial intelligence

Dylan Hadfield-Menell. The principal-agent alignment problem in artificial intelligence. Ph. D. disserta- tion, 2021

work page 2021
[39]

Legible normativity for ai alignment: The value of silly rules

Dylan Hadfield-Menell, McKane Andrus, and Gillian Hadfield. Legible normativity for ai alignment: The value of silly rules. In Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, pages 115–121, 2019. 72

work page 2019
[40]

Cooperative inverse reinforce- ment learning

Dylan Hadfield-Menell, Stuart J Russell, Pieter Abbeel, and Anca Dragan. Cooperative inverse reinforce- ment learning. Advances in neural information processing systems, 29, 2016

work page 2016
[41]

Emergence of language with multi-agent games: Learning to communicate with sequences of symbols

Serhii Havrylov and Ivan Titov. Emergence of language with multi-agent games: Learning to communicate with sequences of symbols. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

work page 2017
[42]

Ethical challenges in data-driven dialogue systems

Peter Henderson, Koustuv Sinha, Nicolas Angelard-Gontier, Nan Rosemary Ke, Genevieve Fried, Ryan Lowe, and Joelle Pineau. Ethical challenges in data-driven dialogue systems. In Proceedings of the 2018 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, pages 123–129, 2018

work page 2018
[43]

Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Dataset

Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Saurav Kadavath, Akul Arora, Steven Basart, Eric Tang, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. Measuring mathematical problem solving with the math dataset. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.03874, 2021

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021
[44]

Knowledge transfer via distillation of activation boundaries formed by hidden neurons

Byeongho Heo, Minsik Lee, Sangdoo Yun, and Jin Young Choi. Knowledge transfer via distillation of activation boundaries formed by hidden neurons. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 33, pages 3779–3787, 2019

work page 2019
[45]

Distilling the Knowledge in a Neural Network

Geoffrey Hinton, Oriol Vinyals, and Jeff Dean. Distilling the knowledge in a neural network. arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.02531, 2015

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015
[46]

Large language models are reasoning teachers,

Namgyu Ho, Laura Schmid, and Se-Young Yun. Large language models are reasoning teachers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.10071, 2022

work page arXiv 2022
[47]

Training Compute-Optimal Large Language Models

Jordan Hoffmann, Sebastian Borgeaud, Arthur Mensch, Elena Buchatskaya, Trevor Cai, Eliza Rutherford, Diego de Las Casas, Lisa Anne Hendricks, Johannes Welbl, Aidan Clark, et al. Training compute-optimal large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.15556, 2022

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022
[48]

Unnatural instructions: Tuning language models with (almost) no human labor

Or Honovich, Thomas Scialom, Omer Levy, and Timo Schick. Unnatural instructions: Tuning language models with (almost) no human labor. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.09689, 2022

work page arXiv 2022
[49]

A sim- ple language model for task-oriented dialogue

Ehsan Hosseini-Asl, Bryan McCann, Chien-Sheng Wu, Semih Yavuz, and Richard Socher. A sim- ple language model for task-oriented dialogue. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 33:20179–20191, 2020

work page 2020
[50]

Language models as zero-shot planners: Extracting actionable knowledge for embodied agents,

Wenlong Huang, Pieter Abbeel, Deepak Pathak, and Igor Mordatch. Language models as zero-shot planners: Extracting actionable knowledge for embodied agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.07207, 2022

work page arXiv 2022
[51]

Inner Monologue: Embodied Reasoning through Planning with Language Models

Wenlong Huang, Fei Xia, Ted Xiao, Harris Chan, Jacky Liang, Pete Florence, Andy Zeng, Jonathan Tompson, Igor Mordatch, Yevgen Chebotar, et al. Inner monologue: Embodied reasoning through planning with language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.05608, 2022

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022
[52]

Mathprompter: Mathematical reasoning using large language models

Shima Imani, Liang Du, and Harsh Shrivastava. Mathprompter: Mathematical reasoning using large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.05398, 2023

work page arXiv 2023
[53]

Opt-iml: Scaling language model instruction meta learning through the lens of generalization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.12017, 2022

Srinivasan Iyer, Xi Victoria Lin, Ramakanth Pasunuru, Todor Mihaylov, Dániel Simig, Ping Yu, Kurt Shuster, Tianlu Wang, Qing Liu, Punit Singh Koura, et al. Opt-iml: Scaling language model instruction meta learning through the lens of generalization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.12017, 2022

work page arXiv 2022
[54]

How can we know what language models know? Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:423–438, 2020

Zhengbao Jiang, Frank F Xu, Jun Araki, and Graham Neubig. How can we know what language models know? Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:423–438, 2020

work page 2020
[55]

Lila: Language-informed latent actions

Siddharth Karamcheti, Megha Srivastava, Percy Liang, and Dorsa Sadigh. Lila: Language-informed latent actions. In CoRL, pages 1379–1390, 2021

work page 2021
[56]

Alignment of language agents

Zachary Kenton, Tom Everitt, Laura Weidinger, Iason Gabriel, Vladimir Mikulik, and Geoffrey Irving. Alignment of language agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.14659, 2021

work page arXiv 2021
[57]

Soda: Million-scale dialogue distillation with social commonsense contextualization

Hyunwoo Kim, Jack Hessel, Liwei Jiang, Ximing Lu, Youngjae Yu, Pei Zhou, Ronan Le Bras, Mal- ihe Alikhani, Gunhee Kim, Maarten Sap, et al. Soda: Million-scale dialogue distillation with social commonsense contextualization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.10465, 2022

work page arXiv 2022
[58]

Paraphrasing complex network: Network compression via factor transfer

Jangho Kim, Seonguk Park, and Nojun Kwak. Paraphrasing complex network: Network compression via factor transfer. In S. Bengio, H. Wallach, H. Larochelle, K. Grauman, N. Cesa-Bianchi, and R. Garnett, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 31. Curran Associates, Inc., 2018

work page 2018
[59]

Linda: Unsupervised learning to interpolate in natural language processing

Yekyung Kim, Seohyeong Jeong, and Kyunghyun Cho. Linda: Unsupervised learning to interpolate in natural language processing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.13969, 2021

work page arXiv 2021
[60]

Understanding black-box predictions via influence functions

Pang Wei Koh and Percy Liang. Understanding black-box predictions via influence functions. In International conference on machine learning, pages 1885–1894. PMLR, 2017

work page 2017
[61]

Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasoners

Takeshi Kojima, Shixiang Shane Gu, Machel Reid, Yutaka Matsuo, and Yusuke Iwasawa. Large language models are zero-shot reasoners. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.11916, 2022

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022
[62]

Augpt: Auxiliary tasks and data augmentation for end-to-end dialogue with pre-trained language models

Jonáš Kulhánek, V ojtˇech Hudeˇcek, Tomáš Nekvinda, and Ondˇrej Dušek. Augpt: Auxiliary tasks and data augmentation for end-to-end dialogue with pre-trained language models. In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Natural Language Processing for Conversational AI, pages 198–210, 2021. 73

work page 2021
[63]

Neural data augmentation via example extrapolation

Kenton Lee, Kelvin Guu, Luheng He, Tim Dozat, and Hyung Won Chung. Neural data augmentation via example extrapolation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.01335, 2021

work page arXiv 2021
[64]

Solving quantitative reasoning problems with language models

Aitor Lewkowycz, Anders Johan Andreassen, David Dohan, Ethan Dyer, Henryk Michalewski, Vinay Venkatesh Ramasesh, Ambrose Slone, Cem Anil, Imanol Schlag, Theo Gutman-Solo, et al. Solving quantitative reasoning problems with language models. 2022

work page 2022
[65]

Pre-trained language models for interactive decision-making, 2022

Shuang Li, Xavier Puig, Chris Paxton, Yilun Du, Clinton Wang, Linxi Fan, Tao Chen, De-An Huang, Ekin Akyürek, Anima Anandkumar, Jacob Andreas, Igor Mordatch, Antonio Torralba, and Yuke Zhu. Pre-trained language models for interactive decision-making, 2022

work page 2022
[66]

Prefix-Tuning: Optimizing Continuous Prompts for Generation

Xiang Lisa Li and Percy Liang. Prefix-tuning: Optimizing continuous prompts for generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.00190, 2021

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021
[67]

Controllable dialogue simulation with in-context learning

Zekun Li, Wenhu Chen, Shiyang Li, Hong Wang, Jing Qian, and Xifeng Yan. Controllable dialogue simulation with in-context learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.04185, 2022

work page arXiv 2022
[68]

Smith, and Yejin Choi

Alisa Liu, Swabha Swayamdipta, Noah A. Smith, and Yejin Choi. W ANLI: Worker and AI collaboration for natural language inference dataset creation. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022 , pages 6826–6847, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, December 2022. Association for Computational Linguistics

work page 2022
[69]

Is Your Code Generated by ChatGPT Really Correct? Rigorous Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code Generation

Jiawei Liu, Chunqiu Steven Xia, Yuyao Wang, and Lingming Zhang. Is your code generated by chatgpt really correct? rigorous evaluation of large language models for code generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.01210, 2023

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2023
[70]

Cheap talk discovery and utilization in multi-agent reinforcement learning

Yat Long Lo, Christian Schroeder de Witt, Samuel Sokota, Jakob Nicolaus Foerster, and Shimon Whiteson. Cheap talk discovery and utilization in multi-agent reinforcement learning. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023

work page 2023
[71]

W., Tay, Y ., Zhou, D., Le, Q

Shayne Longpre, Le Hou, Tu Vu, Albert Webson, Hyung Won Chung, Yi Tay, Denny Zhou, Quoc V Le, Barret Zoph, Jason Wei, et al. The flan collection: Designing data and methods for effective instruction tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.13688, 2023

work page arXiv 2023
[72]

Multi-agent actor-critic for mixed cooperative-competitive environments

Ryan Lowe, Yi I Wu, Aviv Tamar, Jean Harb, OpenAI Pieter Abbeel, and Igor Mordatch. Multi-agent actor-critic for mixed cooperative-competitive environments. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

work page 2017
[73]

Dynamic prompt learning via policy gradient for semi-structured mathematical reasoning

Pan Lu, Liang Qiu, Kai-Wei Chang, Ying Nian Wu, Song-Chun Zhu, Tanmay Rajpurohit, Peter Clark, and Ashwin Kalyan. Dynamic prompt learning via policy gradient for semi-structured mathematical reasoning. In ICLR, 2023

work page 2023
[74]

Matthews, Samuel H

Michael J. Matthews, Samuel H. Matthews, and Thomas K. Kelemen. The alignment problem: Machine learning and human values. Personnel Psychology, 2022

work page 2022
[75]

Generating training data with language models: Towards zero-shot language understanding

Yu Meng, Jiaxin Huang, Yu Zhang, and Jiawei Han. Generating training data with language models: Towards zero-shot language understanding. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2022

work page 2022
[76]

Society of mind

Marvin Minsky. Society of mind. Simon and Schuster, 1988

work page 1988
[77]

The emotion machine: Commonsense thinking, artificial intelligence, and the future of the human mind

Marvin Minsky. The emotion machine: Commonsense thinking, artificial intelligence, and the future of the human mind. Simon and Schuster, 2007

work page 2007
[78]

Cross-task generalization via natural language crowdsourcing instructions

Swaroop Mishra, Daniel Khashabi, Chitta Baral, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. Cross-task generalization via natural language crowdsourcing instructions. In ACL, 2022

work page 2022
[79]

Emergence of grounded compositional language in multi-agent populations

Igor Mordatch and Pieter Abbeel. Emergence of grounded compositional language in multi-agent populations. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 32, 2018

work page 2018
[80]

Webgpt: Browser-assisted question-answering with human feedback, 2021

Reiichiro Nakano, Jacob Hilton, Suchir Balaji, Jeff Wu, Long Ouyang, Christina Kim, Christopher Hesse, Shantanu Jain, Vineet Kosaraju, William Saunders, Xu Jiang, Karl Cobbe, Tyna Eloundou, Gretchen Krueger, Kevin Button, Matthew Knight, Benjamin Chess, and John Schulman. Webgpt: Browser-assisted question-answering with human feedback, 2021

work page 2021

Showing first 80 references.