ECMR: Evidence-Aware Deliberation Control for Multi-Agent LLM Reasoning proposes a controller that dynamically manages deliberation steps in multi-agent LLM systems. The controller evaluates answer concentration, support diversity, contradictions, role behavior, verification history, and remaining budget to decide actions such as propose, challenge, verify, arbitrate, diversify, correct, or stop. In a held‑out evaluation on MedQA, CaseHOLD, and FinQA, ECMR‑Full improves pooled accuracy from 62.1% to 84.9%, lowers false‑consensus from 40.7% to 17.0%, and raises evidence‑support from 58.0% to 88.7%.
arXiv:2610.17869v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multi-agent Large Language Model (LLM) systems typically commit to a deliberation protocol before inference. A fixed protocol cannot allocate computati...
arXiv:2610.17840v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multi-agent deliberation can improve recognition by criticizing and revising candidate answers, but fixed controls cannot respond to changes in disagre...
arXiv:2606. 00005v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We present the Consilium Protocol, a Byzantine Fault Tolerance-derived architecture for structured multi-model AI deliberation that treats inter-model disagreement as epistemic signal rather than error.
Consilience is an inference‑time orchestration framework that steers and certifies communication among multi‑agent large language models in hidden‑profile settings. It summarizes each discussion turn with a compact state of uncertainty, disagreement, evidence gain, redundancy, and premature consensus, then selects a communication intervention (challenge, clarify, seek evidence, or route) and speaker. A round‑wise conformal calibration procedure guarantees that the controller’s proposed action has bounded one‑step regret with high probability, and an acceptance mechanism enforces this guarantee for the executed action. Experiments on HiddenBench‑style tasks show that Consilience improves decision accuracy and communication efficiency over fixed and unstructured protocols, sometimes outperforming a full‑information baseline.
The paper introduces TalkMesh, a decentralized network of small language model agents that learn to communicate effectively during inference. Each agent proposes an answer, scores it with a confidence head, and the most confident agent broadcasts a hint; lower‑confidence agents revise their proposals if a new suggestion scores higher. This gossip‑based consensus, trained via group relative policy optimization, enables a mesh of three agents to match the accuracy of majority voting over 32 samples, and scales to larger meshes to significantly boost performance on benchmarks like GSM8K and MATH-500.
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.
The paper introduces Bayesian Dialectical Argumentation (BDA), a method for aggregating answers from multiple large language models (LLMs) in a council setting. BDA treats each LLM’s typed moves—proposals, challenges, and concessions—as evidence in a classical annotator model, estimating per-agent reliability even when some agents are persistently unreliable. By weighting evidence according to these inferred reliabilities, BDA produces calibrated posterior probabilities for candidate answers and can invert unreliable agents instead of merely outvoting them, achieving superior calibration and robustness on both binary and multi-class benchmarks without extra LLM calls.
arXiv:2609.39645v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Multi-agent collaboration lets large language models (LLMs) improve question answering through deliberation and feedback. Yet shared discussion coupl...
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...
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.
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.
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.