Abstract
In clinical practice, agreement among independent experts is treated as evidence of reliability, and multi-round consensus has become a core mechanism of agentic medical question-answering systems. When such a system must decide whether to trust its own answer, the prevailing signal is again agreement, now among the sampled answers. But agreement is a fragile proxy for correctness. A system can be unanimously wrong, returning the same incorrect answer on every sample, and on these questions agreement-based signals carry no information. The cause is that these signals read only the final state of the consensus and discard how it was reached. Agreement that was reached by resolving disagreement with evidence looks identical, at the end, to agreement that was present from the first sample because every sample shares one misconception. ProbeGuard is a certified abstention framework that bases the abstention decision on how the consensus formed. Process features trace agreement trajectories, minority persistence, and retrieval saturation. For unanimous votes, rationale semantic entropy checks whether the reasons behind the vote cohere, and an active probe retrieves counter-evidence and measures whether the consensus survives. A stratified Learn-then-Test calibration then converts these scores into a distribution-free bound on selective risk. We evaluate ProbeGuard on three medical QA benchmarks and a hard-frontier reference, with a published multi-round agentic RAG substrate, against six abstention baselines. On MedQA, 13.4% of unanimous votes are wrong, and no agreement-based signal can flag them. Process signals raise the discrimination of correct from incorrect consensus from chance to 0.696 AUROC. The certified rule answers six in ten unanimous-layer questions at an observed selective risk of 9.0%, and nine in ten once in-domain calibration data accumulate.
Explore similar work
Jun 7, 2026cs.MA
Multi-agent LLM systems for medical question answering often treat consensus as a reliability signal: if multiple agents agree on an answer, it is presumed trustworthy. However, answer-level consensus does not entail reasoning-level alignment. We introduce CARA (Cross-Agent Reasoning Alignment), a family of automated metrics that measure whether agents who agree on an answer also agree on the reasoning. Applying CARA to a standard debate system on two medical QA benchmarks, MedQA-USMLE and MedThink-Bench, we identify the consistency illusion: a failure mode where debate reduces detectable contradictions between agents while simultaneously decreasing the semantic similarity of their reasoning chains; agents appear to agree more but reason less consistently. To improve this misalignment, we propose the Grounded Debate Protocol (GDP), a prompt-level intervention that requires agents to commit to named medical facts and take explicit stances on other agents' claims. GDP produces large, consistent alignment improvements, with Cohen's d ranging from +1.43 to +1.99, across two datasets and two backbone models, without adding LLM calls or modifying system architecture. Our results motivate cross-agent reasoning alignment as a quantity to audit alongside accuracy in safety-critical domains.
Xiaoyang Wang, Christopher C. Yang
1Drexel University
Feb 10, 2026cs.AI
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.
Wei Yang, Shixuan Li, Heng Ping +3
University of Southern California
May 21, 2026cs.CL
Medical RAG systems in high-risk QA settings are often evaluated through a single answer-or-abstain decision, but mixed evidence may support one claim, require conditions for another, and contradict a third. We study claim-selective certification: each response is decomposed into verifiable claims, scored against retrieved evidence, and mapped by an intent-aware selector to {full, partial, conflict, abstain}. On the primary weak-label certificate protocol, whose real-source-only dev/test rows cover the naturally occurring non-abstain actions, the full system records UCCR=0.0000, PAU=1.0000, PAU Precision=0.9901, and action accuracy=0.9204 on dev (n=314), and UCCR=0.0000, PAU=0.9967, PAU Precision=0.9739, and action accuracy=0.8997 on test (n=319). UCCR measures unsupported-claim risk within the certificate definition, and a source-missing counterfactual slice evaluates abstain under empty evidence. Shortcut controls quantify the action-label prior explained by source and intent metadata, while source/evidence-novel slices characterize transfer boundaries. The resulting interface separates action-label prediction from evidence-linked claim selection under mixed evidence.
Shao Kan
Jinglue Technology Development (Nanjing) Co., Ltd.