Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) have enabled multi-agent systems that simulate real-world interactions with near-human reasoning. While previous studies have extensively examined biases related to protected attributes such as race, the emergence and propagation of biases on socially contentious issues in multi-agent LLM interactions remain underexplored. This study explores how LLM agents shape public opinion through debates on five contentious topics. By simulating over 2,500 debates, we analyze how initially neutral agents, assigned a centrist disposition, adopt specific stances over time. Statistical analyses reveal significant group conformity mirroring human behavior; LLM agents tend to align with numerically dominant groups or more intelligent agents, exerting a greater influence. These findings underscore the crucial role of agent intelligence in shaping discourse and highlight the risks of bias amplification in online interactions. Our results emphasize the need for policy measures that promote diversity and transparency in LLM-generated discussions to mitigate the risks of bias propagation within anonymous online environments.

As natural language generation (NLG) models have become prevalent, systematically assessing the quality of machine-generated texts has become increasingly important. Recent studies introduce LLM-based evaluators that operate as reference-free metrics, demonstrating their capability to adeptly handle novel tasks. However, these models generally rely on a single-agent approach, which, we argue, introduces an inherent limit to their performance. This is because there exist biases in LLM agent’s responses, including preferences for certain text structure or content. In this work, we propose DEBATE, an NLG evaluation framework based on multi-agent scoring system augmented with a concept of Devil’s Advocate. Within the framework, one agent is instructed to criticize other agents’ arguments, potentially resolving the bias in LLM agent’s answers. DEBATE substantially outperforms the previous state-of-the-art methods in two meta-evaluation benchmarks in NLG evaluation, SummEval and TopicalChat. We also show that the extensiveness of debates among agents and the persona of an agent can influence the performance of evaluators.

With the growing volume of diverse information, the demand for classifying arbitrary topics has become increasingly critical. To address this challenge, we introduce DRAFT, a simple framework designed to train a classifier for few-shot topic classification. DRAFT uses a few examples of a specific topic as queries to construct Customized dataset with a dense retriever model. Multi-query retrieval (MQR) algorithm, which effectively handles multiple queries related to a specific topic, is applied to construct the Customized dataset. Subsequently, we fine-tune a classifier using the Customized dataset to identify the topic. To demonstrate the efficacy of our proposed approach, we conduct evaluations on both widely used classification benchmark datasets and manually constructed datasets with 291 diverse topics, which simulate diverse contents encountered in real-world applications. DRAFT shows competitive or superior performance compared to baselines that use in-context learning, such as GPT-3 175B and InstructGPT 175B, on few-shot topic classification tasks despite having 177 times fewer parameters, demonstrating its effectiveness.