Towards Scalable Oversight with Collaborative Multi-Agent Debate in Error Detection

Abstract

Accurate detection of errors in large language models (LLM) responses is central to the success of scalable oversight, or providing effective supervision to superhuman intelligence. Yet, self-diagnosis is often unreliable on complex tasks unless aided by reliable external feedback. Multi-agent debate (MAD) seems to be a natural alternative to external feedback: multiple LLMs provide complementary perspectives and cross-checks for error detection. However, prior MAD protocols frame debate as a zero-sum game, where the debaters compete to win the game instead of seeking the truth. Consequently, it leads to debate hacking: debaters tend to mislead the judge by misinterpreting the task or presenting overconfident claims, which introduce more mistakes and underperform single-agent methods. To mitigate the issue, we introduce a new collaborative MAD protocol, termed ColMAD, that reframes MAD as a non-zero sum game. Specifically, ColMAD encourages multiple agents to criticize each other in a supportive way, such that they can complement the missing points of each other. Therefore, the judge agent can make a more informative conclusion based on more comprehensive evidence. Empirically, we show that ColMAD significantly outperforms previous competitive MAD by 19% and brings non-trivial improvements over single-agent methods in error detection.