The paper introduces R$^2$-MAD, a framework that enhances multi-agent debate by giving agents an experience memory from past debates. It uses a debate-state-aware retrieval policy to adjust concept priors based on current consensus, and derives confidence weights from retrieved experiences to modulate peer influence. Experiments demonstrate consistent improvements over existing single-agent and MAD baselines.
By Xuanfa Jin, Zhijian Ma, Yongcheng Zeng, Xinyu Cui, Haifeng Zhang, Jun Wang
arXiv:2606. 01637v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models are increasingly used in multi-agent systems, where they see and respond to other agents' answers.
By Jiaming Qu, Lucheng fu, Yibo Hu
arXiv:2510. 20963v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Multi-agent debate (MAD) was proposed as a promising approach for ensembling the wisdom of multiple large language models (LLMs) to improve reasoning and provide effective supervision to superhuman LLMs.
By Yongqiang Chen, Gang Niu, James Cheng, Bo Han, Masashi Sugiyama
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: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
arXiv:2604. 02668v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) often exhibit sycophancy: agreement with user stance even when it conflicts with the model's opinion.
By Vira Kasprova, Amruta Parulekar, Abdulrahman AlRabah, Krishna Agaram, Ritwik Garg, Sagar Jha, Nimet Beyza Bozdag, Dilek Hakkani-Tur
arXiv:2609.38324v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Multi-agent systems of LLMs add discussion to majority voting and are therefore expected to be more capable. However, empirical reports conflict on w...
By Chand Sahil Mansuri, Xin Wang, Mengying Li, Bryan Acton, Rory Eckardt, Dhaval Patel, Sadamori Kojaku
arXiv:2609.08016v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Multi-agent debate, in which several LLMs exchange arguments before answering, is widely assumed to improve answer quality by surfacing genuine disagre...
By Chen Qian
arXiv:2610.16343v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Multi-agent debate has shown promise for improving the reasoning of large language models, yet recent theory suggests its benefits are highly regime-de...
By Seungdong Yoa, Ye Seul Sim, Suhee Yoon, Sanghyu Yoon, Dongmin Kim, Soonyoung Lee, Bumsoo Kim, Junhyun Lee
arXiv:2607. 05545v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM conformity is often used to describe cases where a model changes a correct answer toward a peer or group response.
By Yibo Hu, Jiaming Qu
The paper introduces Independent–Communicate–Revise (ICR), a framework that isolates communication effects in large language model multi‑agent systems by fixing initial reasoning and measuring how messages influence answer revision. ICR evaluates correction, preservation, and selectivity across four reasoning benchmarks, revealing that similar overall accuracy can mask divergent revision behaviors. The study shows that richer messages can both improve and harm outcomes, and that receiver policies can shift preservation and correction dynamics differently across tasks.
By Shixuan Li, Wei Yang, Peiyu Zhang, Anzhe Cheng, Heng Ping, Paul Bogdan
arXiv:2606. 15419v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Objective: To enhance the accuracy, interpretability, and robustness of large language models (LLMs) in medical question answering (MedQA).
By Zaifu Zhan, Shuang Zhou, Rui Zhang