arXiv:2601. 05746v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Recent years have witnessed the rapid development of Large Language Model-based Multi-Agent Systems (MAS), which excel at collaborative decision-making and complex problem-solving.
By Zhenghao Li, Zhi Zheng, Wei Chen, Jielun Zhao, Yong Chen, Tong Xu, Enhong Chen
arXiv:2604. 09679v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) is a collaborative framework in which multiple agents iteratively refine solutions through the generation of reasoning and alternating critique cycles.
By Yiqing Liu, Hantao Yao, Wu Liu, Allen He, Yongdong Zhang
arXiv:2607. 01251v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Debate, where AI agents argue opposing positions, has emerged as a key approach to scalable oversight.
By Yuyang Jiang, Chacha Chen, Teng Wu, Liwen Sun, Han Liu, Shi Feng, Chenhao Tan
The paper introduces AgentAuditor, a method that improves multi-agent large language model (LLM) reasoning by structuring agent outputs into a Reasoning Tree that captures agreements and divergences, rather than relying on simple majority voting. AgentAuditor resolves conflicts by comparing evidence at key divergence points, enabling efficient localized verification. The authors also propose Anti-Consensus Preference Optimization (ACPO) to train the adjudicator with evidence-verified supervision, reducing reliance on misleading majority cues. Across four MAS frameworks and multiple reasoning benchmarks, AgentAuditor consistently outperforms majority voting, achieving up to 5% absolute accuracy gains while remaining token‑efficient.
By Wei Yang, Shixuan Li, Heng Ping, Peiyu Zhang, Paul Bogdan, Jesse Thomason
arXiv:2606. 01828v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language model-driven multi-agent systems enhance the reliability of complex reasoning tasks through multi-round deliberation, role specialization, and cross-validation.
By Wanshuang Gou, Zihan Liu
Meta-Moderator is a learnable framework that treats moderation as a meta‑cognitive process, monitoring debate utility, controlling deliberation, and adjudicating final answers. It is trained independently of the debaters through outcome‑driven policy optimization, allowing dynamic regulation of debate rather than relying on fixed budgets or untrained judges. Across five benchmarks, Meta‑Moderator outperforms common decision layers, transfers across tasks and system configurations, and selectively allocates debate to reduce mis‑aggregation after informative hypotheses appear.
By Wentao Hu, Zhuoyue Wan, Jinhao Shen, Chen Jason Zhang, Xiaoyong Wei, Qing Li
arXiv:2505. 23399v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: We propose GAM-Agent, a game-theoretic multi-agent framework for enhancing vision-language reasoning.
By Jusheng Zhang, Yijia Fan, Wenjun Lin, Ruiqi Chen, Haoyi Jiang, Wenhao Chai, Jian Wang, Keze Wang
arXiv:2607. 09099v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: While multi-agent debate (MAD) frameworks have shown significant potential in general reasoning, their effectiveness in highly structured, knowledge-heavy legal domains remains under-explored.
By Tan-Minh Nguyen, Hoang-Trung Nguyen, Huu-Dong Nguyen, Dinh-Truong Do, Thi-Hai-Yen Vuong, Le-Minh Nguyen
arXiv:2608. 10665v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multimodal large language models often generate reasoning chains containing subtle errors that lead to incorrect answers.
By Rohit Sinha, Kunal Tilaganji, Tanuja Ganu, Nagarajan Natarajan, Amit Sharma, Vineeth Balasubramanian
Large language model-based multi-agent systems (LLM-MAS) are designed through roles, debate protocols, and aggregation rules. These choices create implicit social expectations: agents may be expected to trust, challenge, defer to, or collaborate with peers.
Large language model-driven multi-agent systems enhance the reliability of complex reasoning tasks through multi-round deliberation, role specialization, and cross-validation. However, existing multi-agent debate and collaboration frameworks typically adopt fully connected communication, causing the number of messages, token costs, and end-to-end latency to grow approximately quadratically with the number of agents; although fixed sparse topologies reduce overhead, they cannot adapt communication relationships to different task instances or intermediate reasoning states, making them prone either to preserving low-value interactions or to losing critical error-correction information.
arXiv:2606. 29425v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Existing multi-agent debate frameworks suffer from two critical limitations: they rely on static architectures where agent roles and coordination patterns are fixed at design time, and they require instantiating multiple model copies, incurring substantial computational overhead.
By Dayong Liang, Kaisong Gong, Yi Cai, Changmeng Zheng, Xiao-Yong Wei