Learning Adaptive Deliberation Control for Reliable Recognition with Multi-Agent Language Models

The LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm has emerged as a scalable alternative to human evaluation. However, single-model judges are limited by their inherent model biases, while multi-agent evaluation protocols that mitigate this through diverse deliberation are prohibitively expensive at inference time. To this end, we propose \modelname, which equips a compact Judge model with multi-agent Panel deliberation capability. Specifically, we first train on panel deliberation traces from an ensemble of strong evaluators, capturing structured patterns of discussion, disagreement, and resolution. To further improve judgment quality beyond SFT, we introduce AdaReward, an adaptive multi-reward RL algorithm that dynamically rebalances reward component weights as different objectives saturate at different rates during RL training. For practical deployment, we further design a lightweight domain specialization module for rapid adaptation to new evaluation domains with few hundred labeled samples. As a result, (i) Novel: the first framework to equip a single compact judge with multi-agent panel deliberation capability at single-model inference cost; (ii) Effective & Reliable: JudgePanel with a 14B backbone outperforms judge-specialized models up to 70B across four evaluation benchmarks, demonstrates strong position consistency, and rapidly specializes to new domains with few hundred samples.

Multi-agent debate can improve large language model reasoning by eliciting diverse hypotheses and critiques, yet its performance is often constrained by weak moderation. Common pipelines rely on fixed budgets, agreement-based stopping, or untrained judges, leading to redundant deliberation and unreliable evidence aggregation. We cast moderation as a meta-cognitive process, monitoring debate utility, controlling deliberation, and adjudicating a final answer, and introduce Meta-Moderator, a learnable framework that dynamically regulates debate and decides when to finalize an answer. Meta-Moderator is trained independently of the debaters via outcome-driven policy optimization, making debate regulation an explicit capability rather than an incidental effect of prompting. Across five benchmarks, Meta-Moderator outperforms widely used decision layers and transfers across tasks and system configurations. Further analyses show that it allocates debate more selectively and reduces mis-aggregation after informative hypotheses appear.

Multi-agent Large Language Model (LLM) systems typically commit to a deliberation protocol before inference. A fixed protocol cannot allocate computation differently to resolved and unresolved instances, and it may mistake repeated support for independent confirmation. We study this failure as semantic false consensus: a confident group answer supported by narrow, duplicated, or correlated rationales. We introduce ECMR, an evidence-aware controller over frozen role-conditioned LLMs. At each step, ECMR summarizes answer concentration, support diversity and independence, contradictions, role behavior, verification history, and remaining budget, then selects whether to propose, challenge, verify, arbitrate, diversify, correct a role, or stop. We formulate this decision as finite-horizon budgeted control and derive sufficient conditions under which state conditioning, risk-triggered verification, and role correction improve cost-adjusted utility. Across a declared held-out evaluation of 9,000 records from MedQA, CaseHOLD, and FinQA, ECMR-Full increases pooled accuracy from 62.1% to 84.9%, reduces false-consensus rate from 40.7% to 17.0%, and raises evidence-support rate from 58.0% to 88.7%. State shuffling loses 11.7 accuracy points with only 0.7 fewer rounds, while harder traces shift from early stopping toward arbitration. ECMR-Full uses the largest token budget, yielding the strongest absolute reliability rather than uniformly superior token efficiency.