Tree-of-Concerns: Hierarchical Multi-Agent Debate for Unstated-Limitation Extraction in Scientific Critique
TL;DR
Tree-of-Concerns is introduced, a multi-agent framework that deploys specialized skeptic personas, each operating through a category-specific analytical lens, as parallel debate trees to extract unstated limitations from scientific papers.
Abstract
As scientific literature grows and papers increasingly under-report limitations, multi-agent LLMs offer a promising approach to systematically uncover these hidden failure modes. Here, we introduce Tree-of-Concerns, a multi-agent framework that deploys specialized skeptic personas, each operating through a category-specific analytical lens, as parallel debate trees to extract unstated limitations from scientific papers. Each persona conducts structured, evidence-grounded argumentation, while a Panel Review mechanism re-evaluates each surviving claim from all five perspectives to correct category drift and severity miscalibration. Through retrieval-free, single-paper experiments on ToC-Bench, our benchmark of 414 research papers with 1,905 unstated limitations, sourced from reviewer-reported weaknesses and follow-up citation critiques, we demonstrate that ToC improves precision by 79% and coverage by 11% relative to the strongest baseline, surfacing specific, evidence-grounded concerns that support reviewers in systematic evaluation.