Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper introduces Meta-Moderator, a learnable framework that enhances multi-agent debate by implementing a meta-cognitive approach to moderation, which dynamically regulates deliberation and final answer adjudication. By training the moderator independently of the debaters through outcome-driven policy optimization, the framework effectively improves the quality of debate and evidence aggregation. The results demonstrate that Meta-Moderator significantly outperforms existing decision layers across five benchmarks, showcasing its ability to selectively allocate debate and reduce mis-aggregation of information.
A learnable moderator can transform multi-agent debates into more efficient reasoning processes, outperforming traditional methods by reducing redundancy and enhancing evidence aggregation.
Multi-agent debate can improve large language model reasoning by eliciting diverse hypotheses and critiques, yet its performance is often constrained by weak moderation. Common pipelines rely on fixed budgets, agreement-based stopping, or untrained judges, leading to redundant deliberation and unreliable evidence aggregation. We cast moderation as a meta-cognitive process, monitoring debate utility, controlling deliberation, and adjudicating a final answer, and introduce Meta-Moderator, a learnable framework that dynamically regulates debate and decides when to finalize an answer. Meta-Moderator is trained independently of the debaters via outcome-driven policy optimization, making debate regulation an explicit capability rather than an incidental effect of prompting. Across five benchmarks, Meta-Moderator outperforms widely used decision layers and transfers across tasks and system configurations. Further analyses show that it allocates debate more selectively and reduces mis-aggregation after informative hypotheses appear.
