Learning in Blocks: A Multi Agent Debate Assisted Personalized Adaptive Learning Framework for Language Learning

We present MADRAG, a training-free framework for analytic essay scoring that combines multi-agent reasoning with retrieval-augmented grounding. Unlike standard LLM-as-judge approaches, which are prone to bias and unstable scoring, MADRAG decomposes evaluation into an interactive process: an Advocate identifies strengths, a Skeptic critiques weaknesses, and a Judge aggregates their arguments into a final score. Crucially, the Judge is augmented with rubric-aligned exemplar retrieval, enabling calibration through comparison with scored examples. Our results show that MADRAG significantly outperforms prompt-based baselines while approaching the performance of supervised systems without requiring task-specific training. Ablation studies demonstrate that retrieval drives calibration gains, while debate improves reasoning on higher-level traits. Our findings highlight the complementary roles of structured interaction and external memory in reliable LLM-based evaluation.

Foreign language anxiety (FLA) can be a major barrier to second language acquisition (SLA), especially in conversational contexts. With the proliferation of large language models (LLMs) throughout all areas of life, recent work suggests that interacting with LLM agents can be instrumental within the field of SLA and foreign language education, especially for reducing FLA. Related work also suggests that linguistic demands and task complexity can be predictors of FLA, implying that the use of demanding, complex language could lead to learners experiencing higher FLA. In this paper, we propose a novel multi-agent embodied conversational system that generates level-appropriate dialogue for English language learners. These levels are based on those defined by the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) to describe non-native listener and speaker proficiency. Using a "generate-evaluate-regenerate" loop with multiple LLM agents and a level classifier, it achieves a desired simplicity that is adaptive to the user's proficiency level. We also share the results of a preliminary small-sample pilot study that tested this system with Japanese university students, to see whether it would yield lower FLA levels than an unsimplified embodied conversational agent. Analysis of conversational output showed that 87.4% of dialogue sentences generated by the proposed multi-agent system fell within one predicted CEFR level of the learner's self-assessed proficiency, compared to 54.1% for the unsimplified agent. This suggests that the novel system is better able to produce output at an appropriate level for the learner. Though this study did not yield statistically significant evidence that the system reduces FLA levels in Japanese learners of English, likely due to a small sample size, it provides usability findings and culturally-informed design insights that will inform future study.

Multi-agent debate, where teams of LLMs iteratively exchange rationales and vote on answers, is widely deployed under the assumption that peer review filters hallucinations. Yet the failure dynamics of homogeneous debate remain poorly understood, therefore we report findings from a controlled empirical study of teams of $N{=}10$ homogeneous agents (Qwen2.5-7B, Llama-3.1-8B, Ministral-3-8B) across $R{=}3$ debate rounds on two high-difficulty benchmarks (GSM-Hard and MMLU-Hard). We compare peer debate against isolated self-correction and a stochastic noise control that injects rationales from unrelated problems. We decompose debate failure into three model-dependent pathways: sycophantic conformity, where agents uncritically adopt majority answers (modal adoption up to 85.5%); contextual fragility, where peer rationales destabilize previously correct reasoning (vulnerability rate up to 70.0%); and consensus collapse, where plurality voting discards correct answers already present in the generation pool (oracle gap up to 32.3 percentage points). Ablations over communication density ($K \in \{2,4,9\}$) and sampling temperature ($T \in \{0.4, 0.7\}$) show that conformity reaches high levels at minimal peer exposure ($K{=}2$) and intensifies with greater initial diversity. Across all configurations, debate consumes 2.1-3.4$\times$ more tokens (up to 28,631 tokens per problem) than self-correction for equal or lower accuracy. Our results indicate that, within the 7-8B parameter class, homogeneous teams without structured roles do not benefit from unguided peer exchange, and that isolated self-correction consistently offers a more favorable cost-accuracy tradeoff.