cs.MAApr 29, 2026

The Cost of Consensus: Isolated Self-Correction Prevails Over Unguided Homogeneous Multi-Agent Debate

Authors: Blaž Bertalanič, Carolina Fortuna

Organizations: Jožef Stefan Institute Ljubljana, Slovenia

Abstract

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=10N{=}10 homogeneous agents (Qwen2.5-7B, Llama-3.1-8B, Ministral-3-8B) across R=3R{=}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∈{2,4,9}K \in \{2,4,9\}) and sampling temperature (T∈{0.4,0.7}T \in \{0.4, 0.7\}) show that conformity reaches high levels at minimal peer exposure (K=2K{=}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.

Explore similar work

CardsList
Aug 4, 2026cs.MA

Group Perspective Matters: Regulating Debate Relationships Can Mitigate Blind Conformity in Multi-Agent Debate

Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) improves the reasoning performance of Large Language Models (LLMs) through multi-round interaction. However, LLMs in MAD are highly susceptible to blind conformity. Existing individual evaluation methods, typically based on confidence or perplexity, fail to reflect the correctness of reasoning and may even exacerbate blind conformity. To address this, we shift the perspective from individual evaluation to group interaction. We define mutual referencing among LLMs as \textbf{Debate Relationships} and recognize that regulating these relationships is the key to mitigating blind conformity. In this paper, we propose a novel framework for \textbf{D}ynamically r\textbf{E}gulating deb\textbf{A}te \textbf{R}elationships (DEAR) from the group perspective. At first, DEAR quantifies consensus and divergence as \textit{group evidence} to capture the debate state. Then, DEAR operates through three stages: 1) What: perceiving group consultation tendency and uncertainty; 2) Who: introducing a Selection RL-Agent to dynamically select reference peers; and 3) How: adopting a Behavior RL-Agent to adaptively adjust generation behaviors. Notably, we formulate the execution of the two RL-Agents as a sequential decision-making process, jointly optimizing via multi-agent reinforcement learning. Extensive experiments demonstrate that DEAR achieves superior performance while significantly reducing token consumption.
Hao Wu, Shoucheng Song, Chang Yao +4
Multi-Agent DebateDebateConformityGroup
AskPDF
May 30, 2026cs.CL

Not All Flips Are Conformity: Decomposing Stance Convergence in Multi-Agent LLM Debate

Multi-agent debate (MAD) is a promising strategy for improving LLM reasoning, but when agents converge on a shared answer, it is unclear whether that convergence reflects genuine deliberation or social compliance. We show that the conventional answer flip rate conflates three distinct mechanisms: spontaneous instability, stance-induced conformity, and reasoning-induced persuasion. Our three-source decomposition framework isolates each through controlled counterfactual conditions. In the primary MMLU-Pro setting, 37% of agent-question observations change under self-reflection alone, while robustness tests show substantial model-dependent instability across GPQA-Diamond and three model families; strict conformity is 29% in the primary setting and remains predominantly harmful across model replications (57-77% correct-to-wrong). A controlled information-gradient experiment reveals that even vacuous reasoning is associated with 20-39% error adoption among resistant agents, with reasoning-like presentation carrying substantial persuasive weight. Harmful conformity can be predicted from Round 0 features (AUC = 0.79), and risk-targeted intervention reduces it by 13.6 percentage points (p < 0.001). However, without correctness labels or self-reflection controls, reducing peer adoption does not improve accuracy, because harmful and beneficial influence cannot be distinguished.
Xiqi Hao, Zengqing Wu, Yu-Xuan Qiu +4
Multi-Agent DebateDebateConformityPersuasionConvergenceObservation
AskPDF
May 31, 2026physics.soc-ph

The Ringelmann Effect in Multi-Agent LLM Systems: A Scaling Law for Effective Team Size

Inference-time multi-agent LLM scaling lacks a shared unit: counting nominal agents conflates cost with independent evidence. We derive a two-parameter scaling law R(N)=Neff/N=1/(1+c(N−1)N−β)R(N) = N_\text{eff}/N = 1/(1+c(N-1)N^{-β}) where the regime exponent ββ classifies any configuration into one of three asymptotic regimes -- hard-ceiling at 1/c1/c (β=0β= 0), sublinear at Nβ/cN^β/c (0<β<10 < β< 1), or linear (β≥1β\ge 1), and a mean-field theorem predicts that peer count kk and rounds ττ during agent debate enter the dynamics only through their product kτkτ. The law applies at two levels: answer diversity and correctness redundancy. Across 44 (model ×\times task ×\times condition) cells spanning peer debate, self-correction, random-noise placebo, self-consistency, three open-weight families (Qwen, Llama, Ministral) at scales from 7B to 32B with a frontier API check (Gemini), thinking models, heterogeneous teams, and sparse communication, the functional form fits every condition at R2>0.99R^2 > 0.99; only (c,β)(c, β) shifts. On free-form math, dense peer influence collapses the answer-level regime from sublinear into hard-ceiling; correctness-level fits remain hard-ceiling throughout. Three findings have practical implications. \emph{(i)}~Thirty dense debating agents produce no more answer diversity than one on MMLU-Hard. \emph{(ii)}~A noise placebo tracks self-correction on free-form math and at 4×4\times scale, so within homogeneous teams the gain commonly attributed to ``debate'' comes from re-evaluation, not peer content. \emph{(iii)}~A single N≤5N \le 5 pilot predicts the N=30N=30 structural ceiling, and within the configurations tested only architectural diversity (heterogeneous teams) lowers cc and escapes the hard-ceiling regime, communication-mode interventions do not.
Blaž Bertalanič, Carolina Fortuna
Multi-Agent Large Language ModelMulti-Agent Large Language Model SystemsScaling LawsInference-Time
AskPDF