Paper detail

MADIAVE: Multi-Agent Debate for Implicit Attribute Value Extraction

Implicit Attribute Value Extraction (AVE) is essential for accurately representing products in e-commerce, as it infers latent attributes from multimodal data. Despite advances in multimodal large language models (MLLMs), implicit AVE remains challenging due to the complexity of multidimensional data and gaps in vision-text understanding. In this work, we introduce MADIAVE, a multi-agent debate framework that employs multiple MLLM agents to iteratively refine inferences. Through a series of debate rounds, agents verify and update each other's responses, thereby improving inference performance and robustness. Experiments on the ImplicitAVE dataset demonstrate that even a few rounds of debate significantly boost accuracy, especially for attributes with initially low performance. We systematically evaluate various debate configurations, including identical or different MLLM agents, and analyze how debate rounds affect convergence dynamics. Our findings highlight the potential of multi-agent debate strategies to address the limitations of single-agent approaches and offer a scalable solution for implicit AVE in multimodal e-commerce.

preprint2026arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.