跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail
← 研踪 PaperTrail

arXiv:2611.14901 · v1

Understanding the Effects of Multi-Agent Deliberation for Human-AI Decision-Making

首次提交 2026-11-11 09:42
版本更新 2026-11-11 09:42
雷达观测 2026-11-13 10:09
arXiv ↗PDF ↗

摘要

Multi-agent deliberation (MAD), where multiple LLMs engage in structured discussion, improves AI performance on many benchmarks, but whether it helps humans make better decisions remains untested. We conduct two user studies on LLM-response-verification and fact-checking. We first compare MAD against common AI decision-support methods that isolate its two defining dimensions --- multiple AIs and multi-round interaction. We find MAD outperformed single-round AI assistance on both tasks; multi-round interaction was the main driver of this benefit, while a second AI added value when the single AI had room to improve. Then, we study two design choices in MAD --- AI persona and human engagement level --- finding a devil's advocate persona to lower accuracy and user experience, while humans' active participation in MAD improved accuracy in one task at the cost of frustration. We conclude by discussing implications for when, why, and how multi-agent deliberation can support human decision-making.

AI 论文解读

基于摘要 · 非全文审阅

此版本尚未生成 AI 解读。解读由后台任务生成并按论文版本保存,登录后共享已有结果。

版本差异

目前只观测到一个版本,无法比较变化。之后收录新版本时,会在这里对照标题、作者、分类和摘要。

观测到的版本

相邻记录可能跳过中间版本;首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。

v1 · 2026-11-11 09:42 · 最新观测版本

Understanding the Effects of Multi-Agent Deliberation for Human-AI Decision-Making

Multi-agent deliberation (MAD), where multiple LLMs engage in structured discussion, improves AI performance on many benchmarks, but whether it helps humans make better decisions remains untested. We conduct two user studies on LLM-response-verification and fact-checking. We first compare MAD against common AI decision-support methods that isolate its two defining dimensions --- multiple AIs and multi-round interaction. We find MAD outperformed single-round AI assistance on both tasks; multi-round interaction was the main driver of this benefit, while a second AI added value when the single AI had room to improve. Then, we study two design choices in MAD --- AI persona and human engagement level --- finding a devil's advocate persona to lower accuracy and user experience, while humans' active participation in MAD improved accuracy in one task at the cost of frustration. We conclude by discussing implications for when, why, and how multi-agent deliberation can support human decision-making.

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗