The Consistency Illusion: How Multi-Agent Debate Hides Reasoning Misalignment

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.

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.

Multi-agent debate systems are typically evaluated only on whether the final answer is correct, overlooking the quality of the intermediate reasoning that debate is designed to produce. This paper studies the relationship between three signals in multi-agent debate: token-level log-probability distributions over reasoning tokens, LLM-as-judge rubric scores assigned to those tokens, and final task accuracy. We examine whether internal confidence signals predict externally evaluated reasoning quality, and whether either signal aligns with task correctness, across three domains: rubric-based scoring, mathematical reasoning, and factual question answering. Our framework pairs a two-agent debate architecture -- a Constructor and an Auditor -- with an LLM-as-judge that scores each agent's reasoning along instruction following, justification quality, and evidence grounding, together with a critical-failure flag. Experiments in the rubric-scoring domain reveal a consistent four-phase confidence trajectory and a substantial role asymmetry: confidence aligns with judged reasoning quality roughly twice as strongly for the Constructor as for the Auditor, and confidence-based detection of critical reasoning failures is markedly more reliable for the Constructor (AUROC 0.804) than for the Auditor (0.634). These findings motivate the broader cross-domain investigation proposed in this paper.