arXiv (All)
open access
Measuring Collapse and Correction in Homogeneous-Panel LLM Debate
Multi-agent large language model (LLM) debate is often evaluated by whether final answers improve, but movement is not necessarily improvement: the same discussion can rescue an initially wrong majority or destroy an initially correct one. Standard final-accuracy evaluations conflate these opposing
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Asking For An Old Friend: Diagnosing and Mitigating Temporal Failure Modes in LLM-based Statutory Question Answering#1105059
- A Benchmark for LLM's Understanding of Middle School and High School Science Topics#1115976
- Evidence-Inference Reconstruction: When The Evidence Is Recalled But The Reasoning Goes Wrong#1118851
- It's the Problem, Not the Path: Budget and Difficulty Confounds in LLM Reasoning Trajectories#926357
- A Short Survey of Viewing Large Language Models in Legal Aspect#997896
Record · ID 1129873
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive