ArticleScientific reports2025
Testing the limits of large language models in debating humans.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown remarkable promise in communicating with humans. Their potential use as artificial partners with humans in sociological experiments involving conversation is an exciting prospect. But how viable is it? Here, we rigorously test the limits of agents that debate using LLMs in a preregistered study that runs multiple debate-based opinion consensus games. Each game starts with six humans, six agents, or three humans and three agents. We found that agents can blend in and concentrate on a debate's topic better than humans, improving the productivity of all players. Yet, humans perceive agents as less convincing and confident than other humans, and several behavioral metrics of humans and agents we collected deviate measurably from each other. We observed that agents are already decent debaters, but their behavior generates a pattern distinctly different from the human-generated data.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.