arXiv:2601. 19921v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Multi-agent debate (MAD) is widely used to improve large language model (LLM) performance through test-time scaling, yet recent work shows that vanilla MAD often underperforms simple majority vote despite higher computational cost.
By Xiaochen Zhu, Caiqi Zhang, Yizhou Chi, Tom Stafford, Nigel Collier, Andreas Vlachos
Evaluating reasoning quality in multi-agent LLM systems is challenging, especially for open-ended tasks without reference answers. We investigate whether intrinsic confidence signals, token-level log-probabilities from decoding, can predict reasoning quality as assessed by LLM-as-judge evaluation.
arXiv:2606. 10296v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Multi-agent debate systems are typically evaluated only on whether the final answer is correct, overlooking the quality of the intermediate reasoning that debate is designed to produce.
By Ali Keramati, Justin Cheok, Jacob Horne, Mark Warschauer
arXiv:2608. 01463v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Multi-agent debate commonly exchanges complete rationales even when disagreements concern only a few intermediate claims.
By Weijun Gao, Xiang Ding, Haoyang Liu, Tiancheng Xing
arXiv:2512. 06227v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Real-world indicators play an important role in many Natural Language Processing (NLP) applications, such as life events for mental health analysis and risky behaviours for online safety, yet labelling such information is often costly and/or difficult due to its multi-label and dynamic nature.
By Junyu Mao, Anthony Hills, Talia Tseriotou, Maria Liakata, Aya Shamir, Dan Sayda, Dana Atzil-Slonim, Natalie Djohari, Pamela Ugwudike, Mahesan Niranjan, Stuart E. Middleton
arXiv:2601. 02854v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: As an agent-level reasoning and coordination paradigm, Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) orchestrates multiple agents through structured debate to improve answer quality and support complex reasoning.
By Ao Li, Jinghui Zhang, Luyu Li, Yuxiang Duan, Lang Gao, Mingcai Chen, Weijun Qin, Shaopeng Li, Fengxian Ji, Ning Liu, Lizhen Cui, Xiuying Chen, Yuntao Du
arXiv:2606. 24976v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Foundation-model agents in multi-step, open-ended environments frequently suffer from compounding errors, where early mistakes contaminate long-horizon trajectories.
By Pradyumna Narayana, Sana Ayromlou, Purvi Sehgal
arXiv:2607. 26212v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) is a promising paradigm for improving the accuracy and robustness of Large Language Model (LLM)-based agentic systems.
By Quim Motger, Marc Oriol, Jordi Marco, Xavier Franch
arXiv:2606. 13197v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multi-agent debate (MAD) can improve large language model reasoning, but fixed debate pipelines often waste computation and can amplify correlated errors among similar agents.
By Fuqiang Niu, Bowen Zhang
arXiv:2608. 06329v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Task-oriented conversational agents are evaluated using curated or automatically generated benchmarks, yet benchmark quality is rarely assessed.
By Noam Koren, Roy Bar-Haim, Abigail Goldsteen
arXiv:2607. 05477v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Improving the task performance of Large Language Models (LLMs) is essential, yet scaling these models faces significant challenges such as diminishing returns and high costs.
By Lars Benedikt Kaesberg
arXiv:2604. 02923v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated advanced capabilities but often suffer from factual inaccuracies (hallucinations) and systematic biases.
By Shuai Wu, Xue Li, Yanna Feng, Yufang Li, Zhijun Wang, Ran Wang