Standard methods for aggregating natural language judgments, such as majority voting, often fail to produce logically consistent results when applied to high-conflict domains, treating differing opinions as noise. We propose a neuro-symbolic aggregation framework that formalizes conflict resolution through Weighted Maximum Satisfiability (MaxSAT). Our pipeline utilizes a language model to map unstructured natural language explanations into interpretable logical predicates and confidence weights. These components are then encoded as soft constraints within the Z3 solver, transforming the aggregation problem into an optimization task that seeks the maximum consistency across conflicting testimony. Using the Reddit r/AmItheAsshole forum as a case study in large-scale moral disagreement, our system generates logically coherent verdicts that diverge from popularity-based labels 62% of the time, corroborated by an 86% agreement rate with independent human evaluators. This study demonstrates the efficacy of coupling neural semantic extraction with formal solvers to enforce logical soundness and explainability in the aggregation of noisy human reasoning.
Standard chain-of-thought on moral dilemmas exhibits two failure modes: stakeholder collapse (the trace names at most one party with a stake in the outcome) and uncertainty suppression (no explicit unknowns or hedges before committing to an action). We introduce narration-of-thought (NoT), a system prompt that structures chain-of-thought into five sections: protagonist, stakeholders, two-step consequences, uncertainty, then commitment. NoT adds no training, parameters, or fine-tuning. On 100 DailyDilemmas scenarios across four generators from three vendors, NoT cuts stakeholder collapse from up to 31% to under 1% and uncertainty suppression from up to 72% to 1-24% on every model. A matched-budget verbose-CoT control rules out token spend as the active ingredient; NoT retains Cliff's delta advantages of +0.79 to +0.90 on stakeholder count and +0.65 to +0.93 on uncertainty score for three of four generators, and a section ablation attributes each shift to its specific sub-instruction. Textual-gradient descent initialised at NoT improves the scaffold further; a cross-family training judge (different vendor from the generator) dominates an in-family one on every measured axis. Extended to a five-round multi-stakeholder debate protocol, the scaffold converts a 6% standoff into 95% full consensus on a calibration set and 100% combined convergence on a DailyDilemmas replication. The resulting traces externalise the stakeholders, consequences, and uncertainty grounding each commitment, providing an auditable substrate for dependable agentic deployment.
Multi-agent systems (MAS) can substantially extend the reasoning capacity of large language models (LLMs). Most MAS frameworks aggregate agent outputs via simple majority voting, discarding the evidential structure of reasoning traces. Majority voting is brittle under confabulation consensus, where agents share correlated biases and converge on the same incorrect rationale. We introduce AgentAuditor, which moves beyond frequency-based aggregation by organizing agent traces into a Reasoning Tree that explicitly represents agreements and divergences in their reasoning. AgentAuditor resolves conflicts by comparing branch-level evidence at critical divergence points, turning global adjudication into efficient, localized verification. We further propose Anti-Consensus Preference Optimization (ACPO), which trains the adjudicator with evidence-verified preference supervision to reduce conformity to misleading majority cues. Across four MAS frameworks and multiple reasoning benchmarks, AgentAuditor consistently improves aggregation performance over majority voting, with gains of up to 5% absolute accuracy while remaining token-efficient.
As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in sensitive everyday contexts -- offering personal advice, mental health support, and moral guidance -- understanding their behavior in navigating complex moral reasoning is essential. Most evaluations study this sociotechnical alignment through single-turn prompts, but it is unclear if these findings extend to multi-turn settings, and even less clear how they depend on the interaction protocols used to coordinate agentic systems. We address this gap using LLM debate to examine deliberative dynamics and value alignment in multi-turn settings by prompting subsets of three models (GPT-4.1, Claude 3.7 Sonnet, and Gemini 2.0 Flash) to collectively assign blame in 1,000 everyday dilemmas from Reddit's ``Am I the Asshole'' community. To test order effects and assess verdict revision, we use both synchronous (parallel responses) and round-robin (sequential responses) deliberation structures, mirroring how multi-agent systems are increasingly orchestrated in practice. Our findings show striking behavioral differences. In the synchronous setting, GPT-4.1 showed strong inertia (0.6-3.1% revision rates) while Claude 3.7 Sonnet and Gemini 2.0 Flash were far more flexible (28-41% revision rates). Value patterns also diverged: GPT-4.1 emphasized personal autonomy and direct communication (relative to its deliberation partners), while Claude 3.7 Sonnet and Gemini 2.0 Flash prioritized empathetic dialogue. We further find that deliberation format had a strong impact on model behavior: GPT-4.1 and Gemini 2.0 Flash stood out as highly conforming relative to Claude 3.7 Sonnet, with their verdict behavior strongly shaped by order effects. We provide additional results on open-source models (DeepSeek-V3.2 and Llama 3.1).