Date
Publisher
arXiv
Large Language Models (LLMs) enable new possibilities for qualitative research at scale, including annotation and qualitative coding of educational data. While LLM-based multi-agent systems (MAS) can emulate human coding workflows, their benefits over single LLM agents for coding remain poorly understood. To that end, we conducted an experimental study of how persona and temperature of component agents of a MAS shapes consensus-building and coding accuracy for dialog segments. LLMs were prompted to code these segments deductively using a mature codebook with 8 codes and high inter-rater reliability derived from prior research. Our open-source MAS mirrors deductive human coding through structured agent discussion and consensus arbitration. Using six open-source LLMs (with 3 to 32 billion parameters) and 18 experimental configurations, we analyze over 77,000 coding decisions against a gold-standard dataset of human-annotated transcripts from online math tutoring sessions facilitated by educational software. Temperature significantly impacted whether and when consensus was reached across all six LLMs. MAS with multiple personas (including neutral, assertive, or empathetic) significantly delayed consensus in four out of six LLMs compared to uniform personas. In three of those LLMs, higher temperatures significantly diminished the effects of multiple personas on consensus. However, neither temperature nor persona pairing led to robust improvements in coding accuracy. Single agents matched or outperformed MAS consensus in most conditions. Qualitative analysis of MAS collaboration and coding disagreement may, however, improve codebook design and human-AI coding.
Study at a glance
- Question: Do agent personas and temperature settings improve multi-agent qualitative coding accuracy compared to single AI agents?
- Setting and data: 579 dialog segments from virtual Algebra I tutoring sessions with 9th-grade students in two urban northeastern U.S. high-poverty schools, 2022–2023.
- Method: Factorial experiment testing 18 configurations across six open-source models, evaluated using mixed-effects models and qualitative analysis.
Why it matters
Qualitative analysis of rich educational interactions scales poorly. Multi-agent large language model systems can emulate human collaborative coding, but whether agent personas and randomness settings actually improve coding accuracy over single models remains poorly understood.
Key findings
- Multi-agent consensus coding did not consistently improve accuracy over a single agent, and in five of six models, it slightly reduced overall agreement with human coders.
- Higher temperature settings significantly delayed or prevented consensus across all six models, while mismatched agent personas significantly delayed consensus in four of the six models.
- Out of 432 comparisons, multi-agent systems reliably improved accuracy in only five conditions, all restricted to one model, one code category, and low temperatures.
Summary drafted with AI from the full paper and may contain errors. See the full paper for details.
What is the application?
Who is the user?
Who age?
Why use AI?
Study design
