Robots in the Middle: Evaluating LLMs in Dispute Resolution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mediation is a dispute resolution method featuring a neutral third-party (mediator) who intervenes to help the individuals resolve their dispute. In this paper, we investigate to what extent large language models (LLMs) are able to act as mediators. We investigate whether LLMs are able to analyze dispute conversations, select suitable intervention types, and generate appropriate intervention messages. Using a novel, manually created dataset of 50 dispute scenarios, we conduct a blind evaluation comparing LLMs with human annotators across several key metrics. Overall, the LLMs showed strong performance, even outperforming our human annotators across key dimensions. Specifically, in 62% of the cases, the LLMs chose intervention types that were rated as better than or equivalent to those chosen by humans. Moreover, in 84% of the cases, the intervention messages generated by the LLMs were rated as better than or equal to the intervention messages written by humans. LLMs likewise performed favourably on metrics such as impartiality, understanding and contextualization. Our results demonstrate the potential of integrating AI in online dispute resolution (ODR) platforms.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".