Akshat Mehta

Chirag Parmar, Akshat Mehta, Henglin Wu et al.

When does multi-agent debate help data cleaning, and when does it hurt? Across three benchmarks, four model families, and over 6,000 task-condition pairs, we find debate's effect reverses sign: it degrades generation across all four models (-1.6 to -15.5pp) through critique-induced confusion (CIC), hallucinated Critic feedback that the Generator accepts uncritically, yet improves error detection (+27.4pp F1, d=1.0). We derive a debate benefit condition: debate helps when the probability of rescuing a wrong output (Critic verification odds weighted by fixability) exceeds the probability of destroying a correct one. A factorial experiment proves adversarial separation is essential: self-verification with identical tools fails, while a separate Critic with code-execution grounding and evidence-gated generation produces the first debate configuration to significantly exceed single-agent on a generative task (+5.3pp, p<0.05). The condition correctly predicts all nine task types and generalizes with zero false positives across 19 published comparisons in seven domains.

Arturs Kanepajs, Aditi Basu, Sankalpa Ghose et al.

As machine learning systems become increasingly embedded in society, their impact on human and nonhuman life continues to escalate. Technical evaluations have addressed a variety of potential harms from large language models (LLMs) towards humans and the environment, but there is little empirical work regarding harms towards nonhuman animals. Following the growing recognition of animal protection in regulatory and ethical AI frameworks, we present AnimalHarmBench (AHB), a benchmark for risks of animal harm in LLM-generated text. Our benchmark dataset comprises 1,850 curated questions from Reddit post titles and 2,500 synthetic questions based on 50 animal categories (e.g., cats, reptiles) and 50 ethical scenarios with a 70-30 public-private split. Scenarios include open-ended questions about how to treat animals, practical scenarios with potential animal harm, and willingness-to-pay measures for the prevention of animal harm. Using the LLM-as-a-judge framework, responses are evaluated for their potential to increase or decrease harm, and evaluations are debiased for the tendency of judges to judge their own outputs more favorably. AHB reveals significant differences across frontier LLMs, animal categories, scenarios, and subreddits. We conclude with future directions for technical research and addressing the challenges of building evaluations on complex social and moral topics.