Mixture of Complementary Agents for Robust LLM Ensemble

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in enterprise settings, yet individual models remain bounded by model-specific capability limitations. These heterogeneous boundaries pose a deployment challenge, but also create an opportunity: strategically coordinating multiple LLMs may unlock collective intelligence exceeding any single model. Existing approaches fix how models are combined in advance, overlooking the dynamic, state-dependent role of complementarity in complex problem solving. Drawing on the wisdom-of-crowds paradigm, we reconceptualize collective LLM intelligence as relay-style complementarity: a sequential process in which each successor model is selected to address the specific bottleneck identified in its predecessor's output. To operationalize this, we propose WILC (Wisdom Integration of LLM Crowds), a framework grounded in two design principles. First, iterative reflection-and-refinement establishes a state-preserving workflow through which models diagnose and refine prior outputs. Second, complementarity-driven model selection governs transitions via a dual-gate mechanism: prospective complementarity fit (PCF) identifies the worker most suited to the current bottleneck, while posterior complementarity gain (PCG) evaluates whether the selected transition improves the evolving solution. Experiments across four diverse benchmarks show that WILC outperforms existing approaches, including single-model self-refinement, ensemble methods, and query-routing methods. Under standardized pricing assumptions, WILC matches the average benchmark performance of GPT-5.2 at roughly 7 times lower estimated per-query cost, while facilitating data sovereignty through self-hosted deployment. This study extends wisdom-of-crowds theory from static aggregation to sequential AI complementarity and provides transferable design principles for multi-AI coordination.

No single Large Language Model (LLM) is uniformly reliable across queries, motivating multi-model inference systems that either route among models or combine their outputs. However, routing stops after selecting an initial model, while dense collaboration invokes peers on every query. We show that collaboration is non-monotonic: peers can recover failures that no model solves alone, but can also corrupt initially correct answers. We introduce COMED (Controlled Model Escalation for Multi-LLM Deliberation), a post-anchor controller for selective cross-model collaboration. COMED uses anchor self-consistency, router margin, and a lightweight peer probe to accept confident answers, verify ambiguous cases, and escalate only when collaboration is likely beneficial. We formalize this trade-off with a rescue-harm decomposition showing that selective collaboration improves when rescued errors outweigh collaboration-induced harms. Across medical, scientific, and general reasoning benchmarks, COMED improves fixed and routed anchors in all 16 open-weight settings, with gains up to +10.7 percentage points on MedQA while invoking fewer models and using fewer decoded tokens than dense collaboration. On HLE with frontier models, COMED improves GPT-5.5 from 23.1% to 28.1%, outperforming dense collaboration and achieving the best results.

Large Language Models (LLMs) explore problems through chain-of-thought, but this exploration is buried in unstructured prose. On high-stakes tasks, users cannot tell which steps are well-supported, which alternatives were seriously considered, or how the final conclusion compares to those the model discarded. We propose a framework that ensembles the reasoning structure, not just the answers, of multiple LLMs by weighted merging of Directed Acyclic Graphs (DAGs) extracted from reasoning chains. We weight each step by how many traces independently attest to it, to return "Consensus Reasoning". Across six benchmarks spanning statutory interpretation, graduate-level science, narrative multi-hop reasoning, and first-order logic, our ensemble outperforms a matched-budget majority-vote baseline, with a maximum accuracy gain of 3.1% on MuSR-MM (narrative multi-hop reasoning). On a single model, the framework matches or exceeds self-consistency at the same trace budget while additionally exposing an inspectable consensus reasoning graph. Ensemble weights correlate with LLM-judge rankings of reasoning quality at Spearman $ρ= 0.30$-$0.51$, and consensus subgraphs are preferred over alternatives leading to the majority-vote answer in 54.4-65.4% of head-to-head comparisons across five of six datasets. We observe that our framework can also be used to analyze diverse reasoning perspectives for a problem.