arXiv AI

Efficient Multi-Agent Reasoning via Confidence-Guided Adaptive Debate

arXiv AI
Jun 2

Demystifying Multi-Agent Debate: The Role of Confidence and Diversity

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 AI
Jun 30

Mixture of Debaters: Learn to Debate at Architectural Level in Multi-Agent Reasoning

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
arXiv AI
3d ago

Bias Control and Injection for Multi-Agent Aggregation

The paper introduces a test-time aggregation framework for multi-agent reasoning with large language models. It mitigates non-semantic biases by normalizing reasoning traces and injects bias to create decision instability, which signals reliability. The method improves accuracy and token efficiency on several mathematical reasoning benchmarks without requiring validation data or prior model strength knowledge.

By Sungjae Lee, Soheil Abbasloo, Jabin Koo, Jungseul Ok
arXiv AI
Sep 4

Remember and Reweight: Enhancing Multi-Agent Debate with Experience Memory and Confidence Estimation

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 AI
Sep 4

Auditing Multi-Agent LLM Reasoning Trees Outperforms Majority Vote and LLM-as-Judge

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 Computation and Language
Aug 25

Meta-Moderator: Empowering Multi-Agent Debate with Meta-Cognition

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