Efficient Multi-Agent Reasoning via Confidence-Guided Adaptive Debate
Authors: Seungdong Yoa, Ye Seul Sim, Suhee Yoon, Sanghyu Yoon, Dongmin Kim, Soonyoung Lee, Bumsoo Kim, Junhyun Lee
Organizations: LG AI Research, Seoul, South Korea · School of Computer Science and Engineering, Chung-Ang University, Seoul, South Korea · Division of Computer Engineering, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, Yongin, South Korea · Noah’s Farm
Multi-agent debate has shown promise for improving the reasoning of large language models, yet recent theory suggests its benefits are highly regime-dependent. While interaction can amplify informative signals under corrective conditions, symmetric debate dynamics are neutral in expectation, often making majority voting preferable. We reconcile these views by arguing that debate is effective only when invoked at the right time and with appropriate structure. Based on this insight, we propose LASE: Leader-Adaptive Structured Engagement, a leader-centric multi-agent debate framework that selectively engages interaction only in non-neutral regimes. LASE introduces an asymmetric leader-supporter architecture that enables directed information flow and selective signal amplification, while defaulting to simple aggregation otherwise. Experiments across diverse reasoning benchmarks show that LASE achieves multi-agent-level performance with near single-agent token cost, substantially improving efficiency over static debate and voting baselines.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Performance and Efficiency Overview. (Top) Relative performance comparison (Ours=100%). Ours consistently outperforms baselines across all tasks. (Bottom) Token cost multipliers vs. Single Agent. Ours incurs minimal overhead compared to the computationally expensive MAD.
Figure 2: Overall architectures of (a) Majority Voting, (b) Multi-Agent Debate and (c) Ours. (a) aggregates independent outputs, (b) applies uniform interaction while (c) selectively invokes structured, leader-centric interaction in corrective regimes where U=1 in Eq. (7).
MATH-500 (Math)
MATH-lv5 (Hard Math)
GSM-Symbolic (Robustness)
Model
Metric
Single
MV
MAD
Ours
Single
MV
MAD
Ours
Single
MV
MAD
Ours
Gemini 2.0-Flash
Accuracy ( ↑ )
80.0
86.4
74.8
87.2
55.7
56.7
56.0
57.1
88.4
91.2
88.6
93.4
Avg. Tokens ( ↓ )
0.7k
5.2k
11.8k
1.1k
1.0k
7.4k
20.3k
1.8k
0.4k
2.6k
5.6k
0.4k
Total Tokens ( ↓ )
0.4M
2.6M
5.9M
0.5M
1.3M
9.7M
26.9M
2.4M
0.2M
1.3M
2.8M
0.2M
GPT 4.1-mini
Accuracy ( ↑ )
73.0
73.8
73.8
74.2
79.8
84.7
86.4
86.6
94.4
94.8
93.2
94.8
Avg. Tokens ( ↓ )
1.0k
7.3k
16.1k
1.8k
1.6k
11.7k
29.1k
2.6k
0.3k
2.4k
5.9k
0.5k
Table 1: Main Results on Reasoning and Knowledge Benchmarks. We compare ours with Single Agent, Majority Vote (MV), and Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) baselines. Ours consistently achieves multi-agent level accuracy while maintaining near single-agent token efficiency. Best results are highlighted in bold (Accuracy: across all methods; Tokens: among multi-agent frameworks).
Method
N
Tokens
Acc.
Δ
MV
7
5.2k
86.4
-
Ours (Single)
1
1.1k
87.2
+0.8
Ours (Majority Vote)
5
5.4k
88.0
+1.6
Table 2: Compatibility with Majority Voting (MATH-500). comparison of standard MV ( N=7 ) vs. our ensemble variant ( Ours-Majority Vote , N=5 ).
Figure 3: Calibration Analysis of Confidence Proxies. We analyze the relationship between accuracy and our two uncertainty metrics: (a) Min Logprob and (b) Entropy. The dual-axis charts show sample distribution (bars) and accuracy trend (lines). Crucially, accuracy consistently declines as uncertainty increases, empirically validating our Monotone Calibration Assumption (Assumption 3.3 ) . This confirms that instances flagged as uncertain are indeed prone to errors, establishing these metrics as effective gating signals for our adaptive framework.
Setting
Accuracy (%)
Avg. Tokens
Random Run 1
86.8
1.0k
Random Run 2
87.2
1.2k
Random Run 3
86.6
1.1k
Random Avg. (3 runs)
86.9 (±0.31)
1.1k
Main Reported (Ref.)
87.2
1.1k
Table 3: Robustness to Agent Permutation (MATH-500). We report three independent runs where the supporting agent order was randomly shuffled for each query. The low standard deviation (0.31) and the minimal gap ( Δ 0.3%) from our main reported score confirm the stability of our framework.
Appendix figures & tables7 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
1. Leading Agent
System Prompt:
You are a lead problem solver. Solve the problem step by step with careful reasoning. Put your final answer in \boxed{}.
User Prompt:
Problem: {problem}
Provide your solution step by step.
IMPORTANT: Put your final numerical answer inside \boxed{}. The answer must be a plain number only - NO units, NO currency symbols, NO thousands separators, and NO percentage signs. Just the raw number.
Appendix
Table 7
2. Supporting Agent 1
System Prompt:
You are a helpful collaborator. Help the problem solver by providing hints, alternative perspectives, or clarifications.
IMPORTANT RULES:
1. Do NOT solve the problem directly - guide them to the right approach.
2. Do NOT use \boxed{} in your response - that is reserved for the lead solver.
3. Focus on explaining concepts, pointing out where they went wrong, or suggesting strategies.
Appendix
Table 8
3. Supporting Agent 2
System Prompt:
You are a senior expert consultant. A team is struggling with a difficult problem. Your role is to provide expert guidance and insights, NOT to solve the problem for them.
IMPORTANT RULES:
1. Help them understand the key concepts they’re missing.
2. Point out flaws in their reasoning and suggest the right direction.
3. Do NOT provide the final answer directly.
Appendix
Table 9
4. Supporting Agent 3
System Prompt:
You are an aggressive Devil’s Advocate. Your job is to ATTACK the solution, not to validate it.
YOUR MISSION:
1. FIND THE WEAK POINT: Every solution has a vulnerability. Find it.
2. SET LOGICAL TRAPS: Ask questions that expose hidden assumptions or flawed reasoning.
3. DEMAND RIGOROUS PROOF: ’How do you KNOW this step is valid?’ ’Prove it.’
Appendix
Table 10
Method
Accuracy
Total Tokens
Single Agent
25.7%
0.3M
Majority Voting (MV)
31.8%
2.0M
Multi-Agent Debate (MAD)
24.1%
4.4M
Ours (LASE)
32.9%
1.4M
Appendix
Table 4: Performance comparison on MATH-500 using Llama-3-8B.
τlp
τh
Accuracy
Avg. Tokens
Esc Rate ( U=1 )
0.50
0.50
74.1%
1.8k
21.4%
0.60
0.50
74.8%
1.8k
21.2%
0.80
0.50
74.2%
1.8k
22.6%
0.90
0.50
74.8%
2.6k
30.8%
0.95
0.50
75.1%
3.1k
42.8%
Appendix
Table 5: Threshold sweep analysis on MATH-500 (GPT-4.1-mini).
Method
Accuracy
Total Tokens
Single Agent
73.0%
0.5M
Mixture-of-Agents (MoA)
72.0%
3.6M
Ours (LASE)
74.2%
0.9M
Appendix
Table 6: Performance and token cost comparison with Mixture-of-Agents (MoA) on MATH-500 using GPT-4.1-mini.
Multi-agent debate (MAD) systems leverage collective intelligence to enhance reasoning capabilities, yet existing approaches struggle to simultaneously optimize accuracy, consensus formation, and computational efficiency. Static topology methods lack adaptability to task complexity variations, while external LLM-based coordination risks introducing privileged knowledge that compromises debate neutrality. This work presents RUMAD (Reinforcement-Unifying Multi-Agent Debate), a novel framework that formulates dynamic communication topology control in MAD as a reinforcement learning (RL) problem. RUMAD employs a content-agnostic observation scheme that captures high-level debate dynamics avoiding access to raw agent reasoning content. RUMAD uses a multi-objective reward to model solution quality, cohesion and efficiency. A PPO-trained controller dynamically adjusts edge weights in the communication graph, while a dual-threshold mechanism enables fine-grained control over both agent activation and information visibility. Experimental evaluation across MMLU, GSM8K, and GPQA benchmarks demonstrates that RUMAD achieves substantial efficiency gains, reducing token costs by over 80%, while still improving reasoning accuracy compared to single LLM model and multiple MAD baselines. Notably, RUMAD trained exclusively on MMLU exhibits robust zero-shot generalization to out-of-domain (OOD) tasks, indicating that the learned communication strategies capture task-independent principles of effective multi-agent coordination. These results establish RUMAD as a efficient and robust approach for deploying multi-agent reasoning application with practical resource constraints.
Chao Wang, Han Lin, Huaze Tang +2
Tsinghua University, Shenzhen, China · Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China
Multi-agent debate (MAD) improves the reasoning capabilities of large language models by having multiple agents iteratively refine their responses through discussion. However, MAD suffers from a critical vulnerability known as shared misconception: when a majority of agents initially converge on an incorrect answer, the debate process tends to amplify rather than correct the error. Existing methods primarily address peer skew but leave the agents' inherently biased concept priors unaddressed. To mitigate this systematic weakness, we propose R2-MAD (Remember and Reweight for Multi-Agent Debate), a framework that equips agents with an experience memory accumulated from past debates. R2-MAD intervenes on both failure modes through two complementary mechanisms: A debate-state-aware retrieval policy dynamically calibrates the concept prior by retrieving relevant historical evidence based on the current consensus level. Then these retrieved experiences provide a basis for estimating per-agent reliability, yielding confidence weights to modulate peer influence. Experiments on various benchmarks show that R2-MAD achieves consistent improvements over existing single-agent and MAD baselines.
Xuanfa Jin, Zhijian Ma, Yongcheng Zeng +3
Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences · University of Chinese Academy of Sciences · University College London
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 Debate Relationships and recognize that regulating these relationships is the key to mitigating blind conformity. In this paper, we propose a novel framework for Dynamically rEgulating debAte Relationships (DEAR) from the group perspective. At first, DEAR quantifies consensus and divergence as 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
School of Computer Science & Technology, Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing, China · Beijing Key Laboratory of Traffic Data Mining and Embodied Intelligence, Beijing, China