0:00
/
0:00
Transcript

"Diversity of Thought Elicits Stronger Reasoning Capabilities in Multi-Agent Debate Frameworks"

The podcast on this paper is generated with Google's Illuminate.

Multi-agent debate with diverse models beats GPT-4 at math reasoning, using just medium-sized models.

This paper demonstrates that using diverse medium-capacity models in multi-agent debate significantly improves mathematical reasoning, outperforming larger individual models like GPT-4.

-----

https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.12853

🤔 Original Problem:

→ LLMs often produce incorrect responses in mathematical reasoning tasks despite appearing confident.

-----

🔧 Solution in this Paper:

→ The paper implements a multi-agent debate framework using three diverse models (Gemini-Pro, Mixtral 7B, PaLM 2-M).

→ Models engage in structured debate rounds, each providing responses to mathematical problems.

→ A fourth model (Gemini-Pro) summarizes the debate after each round.

→ The framework iteratively refines answers through multiple debate rounds.

-----

💡 Key Insights:

→ Diversity of thought in debating models is more important than model size

→ Multi-agent debate helps improve reasoning at any model scale

→ Medium-capacity models in diverse configurations can outperform larger individual models

-----

📊 Results:

→ Diverse medium-capacity models achieved 91% accuracy on GSM-8K benchmark, surpassing GPT-4

→ Set new state-of-the-art performance of 94% on ASDiv benchmark

→ Homogeneous setup with three Gemini-Pro instances only reached 82% accuracy

Discussion about this video