Abstract:Large Language Models (LLMs) excel in various natural language processing tasks but struggle with hallucination issues. Existing solutions have considered utilizing LLMs' inherent reasoning abilities to alleviate hallucination, such as self-correction and diverse sampling methods. However, these methods often overtrust LLMs' initial answers due to inherent biases. The key to alleviating this issue lies in overriding LLMs' inherent biases for answer inspection. To this end, we propose a CounterFactual Multi-Agent Debate (CFMAD) framework. CFMAD presets the stances of LLMs to override their inherent biases by compelling LLMs to generate justifications for a predetermined answer's correctness. The LLMs with different predetermined stances are engaged with a skeptical critic for counterfactual debate on the rationality of generated justifications. Finally, the debate process is evaluated by a third-party judge to determine the final answer. Extensive experiments on four datasets of three tasks demonstrate the superiority of CFMAD over existing methods.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The paper primarily aims to address the hallucination issues in large language models (LLMs) during natural language processing tasks, where they occasionally generate content that is not faithful to the facts. Although existing solutions attempt to leverage the intrinsic reasoning capabilities of LLMs to mitigate this problem, such as self-correction and diverse sampling methods, these approaches often overly trust the initial answers of LLMs due to inherent biases. Therefore, the paper proposes a method called the **Counterfactual Multi-Agent Debate Framework (CFMAD)**. ### Problems Addressed by the Paper: 1. **Overcoming the inherent biases of LLMs**: By presetting different stances, LLMs are forced to generate explanations for the correctness of the preset answers, thereby overcoming their inherent biases. 2. **Reducing overconfidence issues**: Existing methods like self-correction and diverse sampling can be overly confident in certain situations, making it difficult to correct wrong answers. CFMAD aims to evaluate various explanations through a structured debate process to identify the correct answer. 3. **Improving reasoning accuracy**: By introducing critics to question each generated reason and having LLMs defend their stances in the debate, with a third-party judge making the final decision, the accuracy of the reasoning results is enhanced. ### Main Contributions: 1. Proposed a method of presetting multiple stances to overcome the inherent biases of LLMs. 2. Designed the CFMAD framework to guide LLMs in generating reasons under preset stances and eliminate wrong answers through counterfactual debates. 3. Conducted extensive experiments on 4 datasets, validating the effectiveness of CFMAD in 3 generation tasks.

Counterfactual Debating with Preset Stances for Hallucination Elimination of LLMs

Towards Detecting LLMs Hallucination via Markov Chain-based Multi-agent Debate Framework

A Debate-Driven Experiment on LLM Hallucinations and Accuracy

Interpreting and Mitigating Hallucination in MLLMs through Multi-agent Debate

Iter-AHMCL: Alleviate Hallucination for Large Language Model via Iterative Model-level Contrastive Learning

Lower Layer Matters: Alleviating Hallucination via Multi-Layer Fusion Contrastive Decoding with Truthfulness Refocused

Investigating and Addressing Hallucinations of LLMs in Tasks Involving Negation

What if...?: Thinking Counterfactual Keywords Helps to Mitigate Hallucination in Large Multi-modal Models

Mitigating LLM Hallucinations via Conformal Abstention

The Dawn After the Dark: An Empirical Study on Factuality Hallucination in Large Language Models

Look Within, Why LLMs Hallucinate: A Causal Perspective

Deceptive Semantic Shortcuts on Reasoning Chains: How Far Can Models Go without Hallucination?

Towards Mitigating Hallucination in Large Language Models via Self-Reflection

Order Matters in Hallucination: Reasoning Order as Benchmark and Reflexive Prompting for Large-Language-Models

Cost-Effective Hallucination Detection for LLMs

Mitigating Large Language Model Hallucination with Faithful Finetuning

Banishing LLM Hallucinations Requires Rethinking Generalization

FactCheckmate: Preemptively Detecting and Mitigating Hallucinations in LMs

A Topic-level Self-Correctional Approach to Mitigate Hallucinations in MLLMs

Can LLMs Beat Humans in Debating? A Dynamic Multi-agent Framework for Competitive Debate

Sources of Hallucination by Large Language Models on Inference Tasks