<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Robots in the Middle: Evaluating LLMs in Dispute Resolution · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2410.07053/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2410.07053/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Robots in the Middle: Evaluating LLMs in Dispute Resolution — mentioned by hawest</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47846042</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2410.07053:47846042</guid><pubDate>Tue, 21 Apr 2026 08:19:54 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Super interesting, thank you for sharing! I have published some research on using LLMs for mediation here: https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.16732 and https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.07053 These papers describe the LLMediator, a platform that uses LLMs to: a) ensure a discussion maintains a positive tone by flagging and offering reformulated versions of messages that may derail the conversation b) suggest intervention messages that the mediator can use to intervene in the discussion and guide the parties toward a positive outcome. Overall, LLMs seem to be very good at these tasks, and even compared…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2410.07053/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.HC</category></item></channel></rss>
