---
格式版本: 2
标题: "A Theory of Post-hoc Debate Judgement"
原文链接: "https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.19002"
发布日期: "2026-08-19"
发布时间校准状态: "found"
发布时间需复核: "否"
发布时间来源: "rule:local:strict_original_body"
发布时间证据: "**\\[v1\\]** Wed, 19 Aug 2026 15:03:44 UTC (1,160 KB)"
发布时间校准原因: "规则确认唯一严格发布时间，来源 local:strict_original_body"
发布时间校准置信度: "high"
发布时间候选数量: 18
发布时间严格候选数量: 6
发布时间原页读取状态: "source template page reused from URL open"
发布时间未找到原因: ""
发布时间校准时间: "2026-08-20T15:34:23+08:00"
发布时间仲裁状态: "skipped"
发布时间仲裁尝试次数: 0
发布时间仲裁耗时毫秒: 0
发现时间: "2026-08-20T15:26:21+08:00"
入库时间: "2026-08-20T07:34:23.252Z"
来源平台: "arXiv 学术论文搜索"
搜索渠道: "source_template"
搜索词: "https://arxiv.org/search/?query=performance&searchtype=all"
匹配关键词:
  - "performance"
  - "AI"
相关厂家:
  []
相关专家:
  []
内容类型: "网页"
抓取工具: "Free Fetch + Defuddle"
清洗工具: "Defuddle Markdown + Defuddle/Readability 正文提取"
原始附件:
  []
AI优质: "否"
AI打分: 5
AI分档: "非优质"
AI质检状态: "不通过"
AI打分理由: "该资料为arXiv学术论文，主题是辩论判断理论，与超节点/AI Rack/机柜级AI基础设施完全无关。来源权威但内容不相关，无任何技术或商业信号。"
AI质检模型: "ali-deepseek-v4-flash"
AI质检时间: "2026-08-20T15:37:22+08:00"
AI主题相关性: 0
AI来源权威性: 5
AI新颖性: 0
AI技术细节: 0
AI商业部署信号: 0
AI完整性: 5
AI摘要: "该论文提出并测试了一种适用于代理式AI辩论场景的事后评判理论，识别了可复现性、鲁棒性、基础性和可解释性等正式属性。"
AI摘要模型: "ali-deepseek-v4-flash"
AI摘要时间: "2026-09-07T03:17:06.045Z"
采集批次: "2026年8月20日14点19分32秒"
采集批次ID: "20260820-141932-079"
去重键: "https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.19002"
---

## Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence

## Title:A Theory of Post-hoc Debate Judgement

Authors:[Xiang Yin](https://arxiv.org/search/cs?searchtype=author&query=Yin,+X), [Adam Dejl](https://arxiv.org/search/cs?searchtype=author&query=Dejl,+A), [Antonio Rago](https://arxiv.org/search/cs?searchtype=author&query=Rago,+A), [Lihu Chen](https://arxiv.org/search/cs?searchtype=author&query=Chen,+L), [Francesca Toni](https://arxiv.org/search/cs?searchtype=author&query=Toni,+F)

[View PDF](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.19002) [HTML (experimental)](https://arxiv.org/html/2608.19002v1)

> Abstract:Debates have recently emerged as a useful methodology for agentic AI to improve performance as well as to aid explainability and user engagement. For example, LLM-empowered agents may debate internally (with themselves) and/or externally (with other agents). In many settings where debates are used, debates' outcomes and resulting outputs are determined post-hoc by external judges, often LLMs. In this paper we develop and test a novel theory of debate judgement applicable to all settings where agents engage in debates by providing pros and cons for their opinions therein. Specifically, we identify a number of formal properties that debate judgement may be required to satisfy in general, as concerns reproducibility, robustness, groundedness and explainability. Then, we explore their satisfaction formally and/or experimentally, for claim verification settings, for two specific alternative debate judgement methods: variants of the LLMs as a judge idea and formal semantics drawn from computational argumentation. We show that the two methods give similar accuracy performances but the former may lack formal guarantees that the latter brings. Overall, our study indicates argumentation semantics as an ideal candidate for principled judges in debate-driven AI.

| Subjects: | Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI) |
| --- | --- |
| Cite as: | [arXiv:2608.19002](https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.19002) \[cs.AI\] |
|  | (or [arXiv:2608.19002v1](https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.19002v1) \[cs.AI\] for this version) |
|  | [https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.19002](https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.19002) |

## Submission history

From: Xiang Yin \[[view email](https://arxiv.org/show-email/de334f1a/2608.19002)\]  
**\[v1\]** Wed, 19 Aug 2026 15:03:44 UTC (1,160 KB)

[Which authors of this paper are endorsers?](https://arxiv.org/auth/show-endorsers/2608.19002) | Disable MathJax ([What is MathJax?](https://info.arxiv.org/help/mathjax.html))