SocraSynth: Multi-LLM Reasoning with Conditional Statistics

AI-generated keywords: Multi-LLM Reasoning

AI-generated Key Points

The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the key points are generated using the paper metadata rather than the full article.

  • Challenges faced by large language models (LLMs) include biases, hallucinations, and a lack of reasoning capability
  • SocraSynth is a multi-LLM agent reasoning platform that addresses these issues
  • SocraSynth utilizes conditional statistics and systematic context enhancement through continuous arguments
  • The platform involves a human moderator and two LLM agents representing opposing viewpoints
  • SocraSynth operates in two main phases: knowledge generation and reasoning evaluation
  • In the knowledge generation phase, the moderator defines the debate topic and contentiousness level, prompting agents to formulate supporting arguments for their stances
  • Socratic reasoning and formal logic principles are employed in the reasoning evaluation phase to appraise argument quality
  • The dialogue concludes with the moderator adjusting contentiousness level from confrontational to collaborative, gathering final conciliatory remarks
  • SocraSynth showcases effectiveness through case studies in three distinct application domains:
  • Fosters rigorous research
  • Enables dynamic reasoning
  • Facilitates comprehensive assessment
  • Enhances collaboration among different perspectives
Also access our AI generated: Comprehensive summary, Lay summary, Blog-like article; or ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant.

Authors: Edward Y. Chang

1 figure, 6 tables, 6 appendices

Abstract: Large language models (LLMs), while promising, face criticisms for biases, hallucinations, and a lack of reasoning capability. This paper introduces SocraSynth, a multi-LLM agent reasoning platform developed to mitigate these issues. SocraSynth utilizes conditional statistics and systematic context enhancement through continuous arguments, alongside adjustable debate contentiousness levels. The platform typically involves a human moderator and two LLM agents representing opposing viewpoints on a given subject. SocraSynth operates in two main phases: knowledge generation and reasoning evaluation. In the knowledge generation phase, the moderator defines the debate topic and contentiousness level, prompting the agents to formulate supporting arguments for their respective stances. The reasoning evaluation phase then employs Socratic reasoning and formal logic principles to appraise the quality of the arguments presented. The dialogue concludes with the moderator adjusting the contentiousness from confrontational to collaborative, gathering final, conciliatory remarks to aid in human reasoning and decision-making. Through case studies in three distinct application domains, this paper showcases SocraSynth's effectiveness in fostering rigorous research, dynamic reasoning, comprehensive assessment, and enhanced collaboration. This underscores the value of multi-agent interactions in leveraging LLMs for advanced knowledge extraction and decision-making support.

Submitted to arXiv on 19 Jan. 2024

Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant

You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.

The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the AI assistant only knows about the paper metadata rather than the full article.

AI assistant instructions?

Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 2402.06634v1

This paper's license doesn't allow us to build upon its content and the summarizing process is here made with the paper's metadata rather than the article.

The paper titled "SocraSynth: Multi-LLM Reasoning with Conditional Statistics" addresses the challenges faced by large language models (LLMs) in terms of biases, hallucinations, and a lack of reasoning capability. To overcome these issues, the authors introduce SocraSynth, a multi-LLM agent reasoning platform that utilizes conditional statistics and systematic context enhancement through continuous arguments. The platform involves a human moderator and two LLM agents representing opposing viewpoints on a given subject. SocraSynth operates in two main phases: knowledge generation and reasoning evaluation. In the knowledge generation phase, the moderator defines the debate topic and contentiousness level, prompting the agents to formulate supporting arguments for their respective stances. This ensures comprehensive assessment and dynamic reasoning. In the reasoning evaluation phase, Socratic reasoning and formal logic principles are employed to appraise the quality of the arguments presented by the LLM agents. This helps mitigate biases and enhances collaboration between different viewpoints. The dialogue concludes with the moderator adjusting the contentiousness level from confrontational to collaborative, gathering final conciliatory remarks to aid in human reasoning and decision-making. The effectiveness of SocraSynth is showcased through case studies in three distinct application domains. These case studies demonstrate how SocraSynth fosters rigorous research, enables dynamic reasoning, facilitates comprehensive assessment, and enhances collaboration among different perspectives.
Created on 13 Feb. 2024

Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting

Score: 0

Why do we need votes?

Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.

The previous summary was created more than a year ago and can be re-run (if necessary) by clicking on the Run button below.

The license of this specific paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the summarizing tools will be run using the paper metadata rather than the full article. However, it still does a good job, and you can also try our tools on papers with more open licenses.

Look for similar papers (in beta version)

By clicking on the button above, our algorithm will scan all papers in our database to find the closest based on the contents of the full papers and not just on metadata. Please note that it only works for papers that we have generated summaries for and you can rerun it from time to time to get a more accurate result while our database grows.

Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.