Mahmood Hegazy

Tommaso Tosato, Saskia Helbling, Yorguin-Jose Mantilla-Ramos et al.

Large language models require consistent behavioral patterns for safe deployment, yet their personality-like traits remain poorly understood. We present PERSIST (PERsonality Stability in Synthetic Text), a comprehensive evaluation framework testing 25+ open-source models (1B-671B parameters) across 500,000+ responses. Using traditional (BFI-44, SD3) and novel LLM-adapted personality instruments, we systematically vary question order, paraphrasing, personas, and reasoning modes. Our findings challenge fundamental deployment assumptions: (1) Even 400B+ models exhibit substantial response variability (SD > 0.4); (2) Minor prompt reordering alone shifts personality measurements by up to 20%; (3) Interventions expected to stabilize behavior, such as chain-of-thought reasoning, detailed personas instruction, inclusion of conversation history, can paradoxically increase variability; (4) LLM-adapted instruments show equal instability to human-centric versions, confirming architectural rather than translational limitations. This persistent instability across scales and mitigation strategies suggests current LLMs lack the foundations for genuine behavioral consistency. For safety-critical applications requiring predictable behavior, these findings indicate that personality-based alignment strategies may be fundamentally inadequate.

Mahmood Hegazy

Large language models (LLMs) excel in natural language generation but often confidently produce incorrect responses, especially in tasks like mathematical reasoning. Chain-of-thought prompting, self-verification, and multi-agent debate are among the strategies proposed to improve the reasoning and factual accuracy of LLMs. Building on Du et al.'s multi-agent debate framework, we find that multi-agent debate helps at any model scale, and that diversity of thought elicits stronger reasoning in debating LLMs. Across various model sizes, performance on mathematical reasoning tasks benefits most when diverse trained models are used. Remarkably, after 4 rounds of debate, a diverse set of medium-capacity models (Gemini-Pro, Mixtral 7BX8, and PaLM 2-M) outperforms GPT-4 on the GSM-8K benchmark, scoring 91% accuracy. By comparison, when 3 instances of Gemini-Pro are used, performance only reaches 82%. Finally, this diverse set of medium-capacity models sets a new state-of-the-art performance on the ASDiv benchmark (94%). These results underscore the idea that the future of AI is agentic, with diverse cooperating agents yielding emergent capabilities beyond even the most powerful individual models.

Mahmood Hegazy, Aaron Rodrigues, Azzam Naeem

We present MAFA (Multi-Agent Framework for Annotation), a production-deployed system that transforms enterprise-scale annotation workflows through configurable multi-agent collaboration. Addressing the critical challenge of annotation backlogs in financial services, where millions of customer utterances require accurate categorization, MAFA combines specialized agents with structured reasoning and a judge-based consensus mechanism. Our framework uniquely supports dynamic task adaptation, allowing organizations to define custom annotation types (FAQs, intents, entities, or domain-specific categories) through configuration rather than code changes. Deployed at JP Morgan Chase, MAFA has eliminated a 1 million utterance backlog while achieving, on average, 86% agreement with human annotators, annually saving over 5,000 hours of manual annotation work. The system processes utterances with annotation confidence classifications, which are typically 85% high, 10% medium, and 5% low across all datasets we tested. This enables human annotators to focus exclusively on ambiguous and low-coverage cases. We demonstrate MAFA's effectiveness across multiple datasets and languages, showing consistent improvements over traditional and single-agent annotation baselines: 13.8% higher Top-1 accuracy, 15.1% improvement in Top-5 accuracy, and 16.9% better F1 in our internal intent classification dataset and similar gains on public benchmarks. This work bridges the gap between theoretical multi-agent systems and practical enterprise deployment, providing a blueprint for organizations facing similar annotation challenges.

Mahmood Hegazy, Aaron Rodrigues, Azzam Naeem

Modern consumer banking applications require accurate and efficient retrieval of information in response to user queries. Mapping user utterances to the most relevant Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) is a crucial component of these systems. Traditional approaches often rely on a single model or technique, which may not capture the nuances of diverse user inquiries. In this paper, we introduce a multi-agent framework for FAQ annotation that combines multiple specialized agents with different approaches and a judge agent that reranks candidates to produce optimal results. Our agents utilize a structured reasoning approach inspired by Attentive Reasoning Queries (ARQs), which guides them through systematic reasoning steps using targeted, task-specific JSON queries. Our framework features a few-shot example strategy, where each agent receives different few-shots, enhancing ensemble diversity and coverage of the query space. We evaluate our framework on a real-world major bank dataset as well as public benchmark datasets (LCQMC and FiQA), demonstrating significant improvements over single-agent approaches across multiple metrics, including a 14% increase in Top-1 accuracy, an 18% increase in Top-5 accuracy, and a 12% improvement in Mean Reciprocal Rank on our dataset, and similar gains on public benchmarks when compared with traditional and single-agent annotation techniques. Our framework is particularly effective at handling ambiguous queries, making it well-suited for deployment in production banking applications while showing strong generalization capabilities across different domains and languages.