← 研踪 PaperTrailACL Anthology · ACL 2026:acl:2026.acl-long.1143 · 记录 #1
Agentic Oversight via Dialectic Reasoning
来源日期（仅到月份） 2026-07
来源记录日期 2026-07
雷达观测 2026-11-01 21:56
摘要
Debate has emerged as a promising oversight mechanism for Large Language Models (LLMs) amid rising systemic complexity, particularly where models outperform human evaluators. Yet, Debate provides little verifiable evidence for its final judgments, and its scalability remains largely unexplored. To make oversight grounded and scale as capabilities extend, we introduce an Agentic Oversight framework. By using Dialectic Argumentation as a reasoning function, we extend this paradigm to multilingual and multimodal spaces. We employ a weak-to-strong oversight approach based on two expert models that evaluate and defend contesting answers, while a third blind judge determines the winner using Dialectic Argumentation. Experts argue only for belief-consistent answers, founding the Debate on disagreements. We experimented with six tasks on our framework in both multilingual and multimodal scenarios, and dialectic argumentation consistently outperforms single-expert baselines. Moreover, we show that dialectic judgements from a weaker model deliver argument-mediated supervision that, via fine-tuning, instils unsupervised reasoning signals in expert models.
论文发现出处
这些页面提供论文线索，不代表同行评审或质量认证。
观测到的版本
平台记录号代表本站观测到的元数据变化，不是作者修订号。来源日期仅到月份或年份时，按该月或该年首日存档。
记录 #1 · 2026-07 · 最新观测版本
Agentic Oversight via Dialectic Reasoning
Debate has emerged as a promising oversight mechanism for Large Language Models (LLMs) amid rising systemic complexity, particularly where models outperform human evaluators. Yet, Debate provides little verifiable evidence for its final judgments, and its scalability remains largely unexplored. To make oversight grounded and scale as capabilities extend, we introduce an Agentic Oversight framework. By using Dialectic Argumentation as a reasoning function, we extend this paradigm to multilingual and multimodal spaces. We employ a weak-to-strong oversight approach based on two expert models that evaluate and defend contesting answers, while a third blind judge determines the winner using Dialectic Argumentation. Experts argue only for belief-consistent answers, founding the Debate on disagreements. We experimented with six tasks on our framework in both multilingual and multimodal scenarios, and dialectic argumentation consistently outperforms single-expert baselines. Moreover, we show that dialectic judgements from a weaker model deliver argument-mediated supervision that, via fine-tuning, instils unsupervised reasoning signals in expert models.
查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗