Consensus

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.

Majority voting is the default unsupervised aggregator for multi-sample LLM inference, but it discards two signals: within-group answer entropy and between-group reasoning geometry. We aggregate by delegation instead (Propagational Proxy Voting, PPV): each group of samples keeps weight on its own answer in proportion to its entropy-based confidence (When) and routes the rest to peers by reasoning-embedding similarity (Whom); the stationary distribution of the resulting delegation matrix picks the consensus answer. This requires neither gold labels nor training. On MMLU-Pro with 128 samples per question, delegation beats majority by +1.5 pp overall and +2.24 pp on non-trivial questions (McNemar p ~ 1.0e-14, n = 8,099), overturning wrong majorities whose answer cluster is geometrically incoherent while the correct minority is tight. We then characterize exactly when delegation overturns majority: a two-option model gives a closed-form flip condition on each option's confidence and the weight it routes to the other, with a do-no-harm corollary for near-unanimous questions. The condition calls the realized winner on 96.5% of non-trivial questions, and its predicted mass gap tracks the realized gap at r = 0.97. We did not find any other unsupervised ensemble methods that close the oracle gap.

Multicultural multi-agent systems are increasingly deployed in globally diverse settings, where different agents are grounded in different cultural backgrounds. Existing cultural evaluation focuses on value alignment: how closely a single agent matches a target culture. Yet alignment is a per-agent property and cannot reveal whether a system, taken as a whole, preserves the cultural plurality it is meant to represent. We propose value diversity as a system-level evaluation axis for multicultural agent systems, defined through the dissimilarity between culturally conditioned agents' responses on a shared value survey. Using the World Values Survey, we evaluate 19 cultures and 18 backbone models across a wide range of system configurations. We find that diversity is largely uncorrelated with alignment, indicating that the two capture complementary system properties, and that current multicultural agent systems fall substantially below human societies in value diversity. Mixed-backbone systems narrow this gap but do not close it, and the gap persists across culture compositions and agent scales. Social interaction further erodes diversity by driving agents toward consensus, and a participatory budgeting case study shows that this homogenization narrows the breadth of collective decision-making. Together, our results establish value diversity as a distinct evaluation axis for multicultural multi-agent systems and reveal a persistent homogenization tendency in current LLM-based societies. Our code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/iNLP-Lab/MultiAgent-Diversity.

Evaluating LLM mediators remains challenging, as mediation unfolds as a real-time trajectory shaped by disputants' shifting emotions, intentions, and context. Existing testbeds rely on a few expert-authored domains, vary mainly strategic posture, and score every turn against every topic, introducing off-topic noise. We introduce SoCRATES, a benchmark for evaluating proactive LLM mediators in realistic, multi-domain testbeds. It constructs scenarios from real conflicts through an agentic pipeline across eight domains, probes five socio-cognitive adaptation axes (strategic posture, party composition, history length, emotional reactivity, and cultural identity), and scores each topic only on the turns that advance it via a topic-localized evaluator. The evaluator reaches 0.82 alignment with human experts, more than doubling a per-turn baseline. Benchmarking eight frontier LLMs, we find that even the strongest mediator closes only about a third of the unmediated consensus gap under diverse and realistic testbeds, with performance varying sharply by socio-cognitive axis, highlighting that progress lies in social adaptation to diverse conditions.

Multi-agent systems are commonly designed to reduce disagreement through voting, consensus protocols, debate, or fault-tolerant aggregation. We argue that this objective is insufficient for value-laden tasks, where disagreement may reflect genuine normative uncertainty rather than agent error. Building on prior work on reasoning-trace disagreement in human-AI collaborative moderation, we propose a knowledge-representation layer in which reasoning traces and agent decisions are abstracted into symbolic disagreement states. Given agents producing explicit reasoning traces and binary decisions, we distinguish four states according to reasoning similarity and conclusion agreement: convergent agreement, divergent agreement, convergent disagreement and divergent disagreement. These states support defeasible strategic routing rules. We instantiate the framework in content moderation and argue that disagreement-aware routing provides a bridge between sub-symbolic LLM deliberation and symbolic knowledge representation for multi-agent strategic reasoning.

How much should an LLM agent remember, and how should multi-agent systems be connected when trying to reach consensus? We show these two design choices interact in a way that flips the sign of memory's effect on coordination. Across 432 simulation runs of a networked Naming Game on eight fixed 16-agent topologies, we vary memory depth and network structure. Longer memory slows the time to reach steady state in decentralized networks but accelerates it in centralized ones; the same parameter pushes the system in opposite directions depending on topology. Critically, "faster settling" in centralized networks means locking in to a fragmented plateau more quickly, not reaching system-wide consensus, which can be used to generate diverging opinions. We further document a memory-mediated speed-unity trade-off: centralized networks consistently preserve more competing conventions than decentralized networks, but their settling speed depends sharply on memory. At the agent level, within-network analyses show that high-betweenness bridges suffer a brokerage penalty while agents in locally clustered neighborhoods achieve higher coordination success. Finally, in search of analytically tractable generative mechanisms, we find that agents' choices are well captured by Fictitious Play, indicating belief-based rather than reward-based adaptation. The practical implication: memory depth and communication topology should be co-designed, not optimized in isolation.

LLM judges now score most open-ended NLP output, and their mutual agreement is routinely read as evidence that the scores can be trusted. That reading is unsafe: judges may agree because they capture quality, or because they share the same blind spots, and agreement statistics alone cannot tell these apart. We develop a geometric test that can. Treating each judge's scores as a vector, we measure spread, effective rank, the angle to human scores, and the judge-judge, judge-human, and human-human agreement triple for 42 judges on two community-built Indic benchmarks covering four domains and eight languages. Every comparison is reference-matched: a judge and a held-out rater are scored against the same two-rater mean, since an averaged reference otherwise flatters judges by several degrees. On subjective rubrics, judges agree with one another as much as humans do yet reach only 58-66% of human agreement and often concentrate on an axis humans do not weight. On the one rubric with a verifiable answer, most of that gap closes. Ensembles converge on the judges' shared axis rather than the human one, and training widens scores without rotating them. Inter-judge agreement is evidence of human alignment only after this check passes.

Multi-agent LLM systems often treat consensus as evidence of successful interaction. For deliberative problems, however, reliability depends on whether agents preserve the facts and viewpoints needed to interpret an issue. We identify the deliberative illusion: discussion produces (1) factual attrition, the progressive loss of issue-critical facts, alongside (2) stance homogenization, the collapse of diverse positions toward consensus. To measure this process, we introduce DelibTrace, a framework that decomposes each issue into atomic facts, labels issue-critical ones, distributes them across agents, and tracks their survival across discussion rounds. Across ethical and news-based deliberation with three representative LLM families, multi-agent discussion erases up to 72% of issue-critical facts. This loss is consequential: retained evidence can reconstruct the issue misleadingly, final stances remain anchored in base-model priors, and a single malicious agent can inject misinformation into the shrinking shared context. These results reveal a sharper risk: agents can agree more while knowing less. We call for evaluations that measure which facts, uncertainties, and legitimate disagreements survive interaction.

Mixture-of-Agents (MoA) systems improve reasoning accuracy by routing each query to multiple expert LLMs and aggregating their outputs. Efficiently executing this workload on limited GPU resources has bottlenecks. Skill-based routing creates skewed expert demand, and combining instruction-tuned LLMs with long-reasoning models results in extreme variability in generation lengths. Consequently, traditional scheduling strategies suffer from significant GPU idling and throughput collapse due to load imbalances. We present MOSAIC, a scheduling framework to accelerate MoA workloads. First, we formulate an Integer Linear Program (ILP) based scheduler that jointly optimizes expert placement and per-worker prompt assignment from offline-profiled costs, replicating reasoning experts across workers while pinning lightweight ones. Second, MOSAIC uses confidence-aware adaptive aggregation, leveraging inter-expert agreement to bypass the heavy final aggregator LLM for consensus queries. In our 4-GPU system, MOSAIC achieves up to 2.5x expert-stage, 4.23x aggregator-stage and 1.7~2.3x end-to-end speedups over the baseline scheduler, while matching accuracy within 0.1pp.

We introduce D^3S Consensus, a physics-based, closed-form algorithm that unifies depth-from-defocus (DfD) and stereo to achieve highly accurate depth estimation throughout an extended working range beyond the depth-of-field (DoF) of cameras. Given a pair of dual-defocus stereo images, the method estimates an overdetermined set of depth using a novel DfD theory, Dual Differential Defocus (D^3), and (S)tereo in a coupled fashion. It then picks the most confident depth prediction from the set by enforcing consensus between these physically independent cues to reject unreliable estimates. Analysis shows that D^3S achieves a comparable working range under the same error tolerance with 10x smaller baseline than previous triangulation-based depth estimation systems. This enables compact passive binocular rangefinders with substantially smaller form factors than conventional stereo and DfD designs. We demonstrate the first D^3S prototype with only 4 mm baseline and 12 mm EFL. It generates up to 900 x 1800-pixel depth maps with 1-cm mean absolute error over 0.3-1.64 m from a snapshot acquisition. This has surpassed the reported accuracy of certain commercially available stereo cameras with much larger form factors.

The coordination of heterogeneous autonomous agents in dynamic, adversarial environments requires simultaneous satisfaction of geometric constraints, logical consistency, temporal reasoning, and strategic optimization. Existing sheaf- and topos-theoretic frameworks provide powerful tools for geometric consensus, knowledge alignment, and causal planning, but lack explicit models for value, reward, and strategic choice. This report presents a unified categorical framework that integrates event calculus, SCEL-like ensemble formation, and game-theoretic reward structures into a single Grothendieck topos of time-space histories. We introduce the notion of a \emph{game sheaf} whose stalks contain utility functions and policy distributions, and restriction maps encode both parallel transport and best-response dynamics. We prove that Nash equilibria correspond to global sections of a derived best-response correspondence sheaf, while cohomological obstructions classify failures of strategic consistency. A detailed case study of an immunological ``bastion defense'' scenario -- heterogeneous agents forming attack/defense ensembles under resource constraints -- demonstrates the framework's expressiveness. This synthesis provides a rigorous foundation for verifiable, autonomic, and economically rational multi-agent systems.

Large language models are increasingly used in multi-agent systems, where they see and respond to other agents' answers. A key risk is conformity: a model may abandon its own answer simply because others agree on a different one. Prior studies show that LLMs often revise toward a majority answer, but it remains unclear whether these revisions help correct mistakes as often as they introduce new errors. In this paper, we conduct a controlled study in which an LLM first answers a question, then sees simulated peer responses before making a final decision. We manipulate two social cues: consensus structure and authority labels assigned to peers, and measure how they influence beneficial and harmful revisions. Across four open-weight LLMs and seven QA datasets, we find that peer agreement makes it much easier to mislead initially correct models than to correct initially wrong ones. Authority labels make models more likely to choose the endorsed answer, regardless of whether it is correct. More concerningly, generic reasoning interventions such as chain-of-thought and reflection do not reliably reduce harmful revision while preserving beneficial revision. These findings suggest that multi-agent LLM systems should verify peer answers rather than simply aggregate them.

Multi-agent systems powered by large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for financial analysis and decision support. However, existing coordination schemes, especially those emphasizing consensus or debate, are vulnerable to sycophancy: agents conform to peer reasoning instead of evidence, leading to premature agreement and degraded outcomes. We introduce FinCom (Financial Committee), a governed multi-agent framework and interactive system that operationalizes the Disagree-or-Commit (DoC) protocol to embed structured dissent into financial AI committees. A central Supervisor orchestrates three ReAct-enabled specialist agents: Research, Quantitative, and Risk. Each agent is equipped with role-specific tools for retrieval, computation, and stress testing. During deliberation, agents must either explicitly critique or commit to their peers' reasoning before converging on a unified recommendation. This demonstration showcases how FinCom supports committee-style financial analysis through coordinated multi-agent interaction, including structured report generation and interactive decision support. Evaluated across the most recent financial agent benchmark, in addition to 90 internal handcrafted financial tasks using an LLM-as-a-Judge protocol, DoC improves reasoning accuracy and risk awareness significantly over a consensus-seeking baseline on both an in-house and external evaluation set. By reframing disagreement as a governance primitive rather than noise, FinCom offers a lightweight, prompt-only recipe for improving accountability, transparency, and epistemic robustness in agentic financial systems.

We present a differentiable optimization framework for multi-agent coordination. An input is decomposed into overlapping local views, each processed by an agent that solves a convex subproblem parameterized by a neural encoder. Agents coordinate through the Alternating Direction Method of Multipliers (ADMM) with inter-agent constraints specified by a cellular sheaf. The sheaf specifies which aspects of neighboring solutions must agree, allowing for heterogeneous notions of global consensus. Backpropagating through the unrolled optimization jointly trains all components of the multi-agent system. We evaluate on maze pathfinding, image classification, and Sudoku, where agents with individually insufficient local views learn to coordinate to produce correct global outputs. On MNIST, the local-view decomposition yields improved robustness to distribution shifts relative to a standard CNN. On Sudoku, the optimization-derived structure yields markedly higher solve rates than parameter-matched MPNN baselines. Finally, the ADMM structure exposes distinct primal, consensus, and dual state variables, opening the coordination dynamics to direct analysis and intervention -- a property unavailable in standard message-passing architectures.

Prediction markets aggregate collective intelligence to forecast uncertain events, but their utility depends on reliable outcome resolution. Existing oracle systems tradeoff fast but brittle automation against accurate but costly human arbitration. Single-LLM oracles achieve meaningful accuracy but inherit all failure modes of their underlying model with no self-correction mechanism. We evaluate whether multi-agent LLM architectures can improve oracle resolution accuracy over single-model baselines. We compare independent aggregation and deliberative consensus against single-LLM baselines (GPT-5 Nano, DeepSeek V3, and Llama-3.3-70B) on 1,189 resolved prediction market questions from KalshiBench. All agents share a common evidence layer through Exa, with retrieval filtered by publication date to isolate reasoning from retrieval quality. Independent aggregation with confidence-weighted voting achieves the highest accuracy at 83.43 percent, outperforming the best individual model by 1.01 percentage points. Deliberative consensus degrades accuracy to approximately 76 percent, below every single-model baseline, attributed to error propagation during debate where confidently wrong models flip correct ones. Error correlations across models (0.529-0.689) explain why aggregation gains fall short of the theoretical Condorcet ceiling, placing a fundamental limit on ensemble approaches. Many questions resist correction by any multi-agent architecture, motivating escalation to human arbitration. We propose routing criteria for hybrid AI-human oracle systems: auto-resolving only unanimous, high-confidence questions yields 97.87 percent accuracy on 47 percent of the dataset, with inter-agent disagreement flagging the remainder for human review.

Multi-agent LLM systems often treat agreement as evidence: when many agents in a panel give the same answer, that answer is assumed to be more reliable. We show that this assumption can fail after agents communicate. Communication can induce correlated failures and false consensus, so the same vote share may reflect reliable agreement in one topology but over-confidence in another. We propose CAGE-CAL, a counterfactual agent-graph calibration framework for multi-agent LLMs. For each query, CAGE-CAL compares an observed post-communication agent graph with a matched counterfactual no-communication graph, capturing both pairwise failure correlations and group-level dependencies. Rather than simply counting how many agents agree, CAGE-CAL estimates the counterfactual shift between observed and no-communication dependence, and calibrates confidence accordingly. Across five benchmarks, CAGE-CAL improves reliability discrimination with competitive ECE, and its calibrated confidence further improves topology selection over the best fixed-topology strategy.

We present a distributed approach for constrained Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning (MARL) that combines state-augmented policy learning with distributed consensus over dual variables. Our method targets systems where agents have separable dynamics but must coordinate to satisfy global resource constraints, a setting in which, as we demonstrate empirically, independent learning fails to produce feasible solutions because agents cannot determine appropriate individual contributions toward collective constraint satisfaction. The key technical contribution is showing that lightweight neighbor-to-neighbor consensus over Lagrange multipliers suffices for globally coordinated constraint enforcement while preserving the scalability of independent training. Each agent learns a single augmented policy offline, conditioned on both its local state and a dual variable encoding constraint feedback. During execution, agents reach agreement on this dual variable through local communication alone. We prove that under mild connectivity assumptions, the consensus error among agents' multipliers is bounded, and show that this translates to a bounded constraint violation that decreases with graph connectivity and the number of consensus rounds. Unlike centralized training with decentralized execution (CTDE) approaches, whose complexity grows at least quadratically with agent count, our method scales linearly in both training and execution. Experiments on smart grid demand response demonstrate that consensus coordination is \emph{essential for feasibility}: without it, agents satisfy grid capacity constraints only by indefinitely postponing demand, a degenerate non-solution. With consensus, agents converge to a shared dual variable and satisfy both grid constraints and demand fulfillment, scaling to thousands of agents while CTDE baselines are limited to dozens.

Although large language model (LLM) based multi-agent systems (MAS) show their capability to solve complex tasks and achieve higher performance over single agent systems, they lead to huge computational overheads because of heavy communication between agents. Previous research has made efforts to train a sparse multi-agent graph or fine-tune a planner to orchestrate the workflow better. However, such extra training processes introduce computational costs and limit MAS to specific domains, therefore compromising their generalizability. In this paper, we propose CONCAT, a training-free multi-agent collaboration framework based on CONsensus and Confidence-driven Ad hoc Teaming to efficiently organize agent interactions. Specifically, agents are clustered based on their initial answers, and leaders of each cluster are selected based on the agents' confidence. Then, a heuristic function based on the Theory of Mind is designed to predict the collaboration benefits between every two leaders according to their answers and confidence. Finally, an ad hoc multi-agent network is organized after evicting a percentage of communications based on the predicted benefits. Experiments across three LLMs and three benchmarks show that CONCAT achieves up to 2.02x higher efficiency (accuracy/latency ratio) than LLM-Debate and outperforms training-aware methods such as AgentDropout, while reducing average latency by 50.1% on Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct, without any task-specific training.

Improving the quality of model-generated summaries, especially factuality, the accuracy of a summary with respect to its source content, remains a challenge. While reranking could select the optimal output from multiple generated candidates, it is limited to only using the source as guidance, resulting in unreliable summaries. To address this limitation, we propose ConSUM that reranks candidate summaries by considering two factors: consistency to the source document and consensus among the other candidates. Consensus is established using Minimum Bayes Risk (MBR) decoding over the set of generated summaries, while ensuring consistency by employing factuality-aware metrics that compare the summary against the source. Rigorous testing demonstrates that our system is competitive with existing methods, with human evaluations further confirming that its generated summaries are preferred over those from other systems. Our code is available at https://github.com/naist-nlp/ConSUM .

When multiple LLM agents solve the same problem, standard practice compresses each agent's reasoning into a majority vote or layered synthesis, treating agreement as the finish line. We show this is unnecessarily lossy: an LLM aggregator that reads complete reasoning traces recovers correct solutions even when agents unanimously agree, with beneficial corrections consistently outweighing harmful ones -- the \emph{aggregation paradox}. Majority voting has a ceiling that perturbation diversity does not raise (error correlations are identical); the aggregator's gain comes from trace-level complementarity, assembling correct intermediate steps from minority chains that voting discards. These findings motivate Self-Consistent Mixture of Agents which generates trace diversity through semantic-preserving input perturbations, safeguards the majority via anchored refinement with provable non-degradation guarantees, and always synthesizes -- never gates on consensus. A single model with perturbation-induced trace variation outperforms heterogeneous model pools across structured reasoning, PhD-level science, competition mathematics, and competitive programming. The unit of aggregation should be the reasoning trace, not the answer.

Automated scoring of ESG narrative disclosures with large language models (LLMs) is gaining traction, yet whether reasoning-heavy frontier models add value commensurate with their cost remains empirically unsettled. We evaluate this question on a corpus of ten Japanese listed firms across three rubric axes -- quantitative targets, progress-tracking infrastructure, and external-standard alignment -- using a four-model consensus design that combines a reasoning-on frontier model with three reasoning-off contemporaries. Across 120 firm x axis x model scores, the pooled mean absolute deviation between the reasoning-on model and each reasoning-off counterpart is 0.38 on a 5-point scale; only 2% of pairwise comparisons reach a two-point deviation, and none exceeds two points. Per-firm cost accounting shows the reasoning-on arm alone costs roughly 5.6x as much as the three-provider reasoning-off ensemble, for outcomes that differ only within small margins. We conclude that in span-based ESG narrative scoring, reasoning-heavy deployment does not materially improve outcomes relative to reasoning-off consensus, while substantially increasing operational cost. We discuss implications for cost-effective ESG auto-scoring pipelines and LLM deployment governance in applied accountability settings. An earlier version of this work is available on SSRN (Abstract ID 6683303).

Multi-party multi-objective optimization problems (MPMOPs) require consensus among autonomous decision makers and therefore differ from flattened many-objective formulations. Existing runtime theory for multi-objective evolutionary algorithms is largely tailored to single-party Pareto-front approximation and does not directly explain common-solution search in MPMOPs. We investigate cross-party recombination in two representative settings. On MP-JCG, a pseudo-Boolean benchmark with an explicit gap region, we prove that a payoff-guided mutation baseline faces a gap-crossing bottleneck requiring $Θ(n^2)$ expected fitness evaluations. In contrast, an analytical CPR-NSGA-II variant discovers both common Pareto-optimal solutions in $O(n\log n)$ expected evaluations by directly assembling complementary prefix and suffix templates distributed across party populations. Comparing this with the flattened four-objective formulation F-JCG, our full-front coverage analysis illustrates the additional coverage burden introduced by flattening. For BPBOMST, the bi-party, two-objective-per-party specialization of the multi-party multi-objective minimum spanning tree problem, we develop a layered support-cover analysis. For each common Pareto objective vector, the symmetric average projection induces an auxiliary bi-objective MST instance, and suitable support representatives yield a $2λ$-common approximation cover with $λ\in[1,2]$. We further derive an instance-parameterized expected runtime bound for a representative-pool CPR-NSGA-II variant using edge-union recombination and uniform repair. This bound separates the effects of local auxiliary-front filling, cross-party recombination shortcuts, and edge-union repair ambiguity.

This paper develops a feedback-based method to preserve the topology privacy of consensus protocols in network systems. The key idea is to intentionally violate topology identifiability conditions, thereby preventing unique or accurate recovery of the true topology from available observations, while preserving the intended consensus behavior. This problem is challenging because the feedback magnitude directly reflects the privacy level of edges, while it is strongly coupled with the consensus convergence and constrained by local communications at each node. To begin with, we derive the feedback conditions of both partial and full observation cases, where the topology unsolvability from observation data is characterized in the former, and the solution space that enforces topology inaccuracy from data is constructed in the latter. Then, we propose a novel distributed topology modification design under limited privacy budgets, and establish the performance guarantees through a controllable tradeoff between the consensus deviation and the topology privacy. Finally, we develop a low-complexity heuristic algorithm to achieve optimal privacy preservation on existing edges. Comparative simulations validate the effectiveness and outperformance of the proposed preservation design.

Free energy profiles serve as a fundamental bridge between microscopic atomic fluctuations and macroscopic thermodynamic observables. Estimating the free energy profile along a reaction coordinate, referred to as the potential of mean force (PMF), with density functional theory (DFT) accuracy is computationally expensive. Universal machine learning interatomic potentials (MLIPs) drastically reduce this cost, but their accuracy is strongly determined by their training data and hence can be uncertain for a given system. In this work, we present a systematic and scalable framework for reweighting PMFs, initially sampled with a single 'source' MLIP, across a representative suite of target MLIPs. Because traditional direct exponential reweighting fails for large system sizes due to low phase-space overlap between potentials, we deploy robust analytical corrections. Applying this to a complex 601-atom system of Li$^+$ transport in a nanoconfined electrolyte, we demonstrate that a mean energy-gap approximation effectively bypasses statistical collapse, producing a highly stable PMF matching the target PMF. Using this approach, we recover high-fidelity target thermodynamics across multiple DFT reference levels (PBE+D3, PBE-sol, r$^2$SCAN,r$^2$SCAN-D4) at a fraction of the computational cost of full simulations. Furthermore, thermodynamic analysis reveals that the studied MLIPs partition into two distinct clusters driven by their training data. Our reweighting framework successfully recovers target thermodynamic properties--specifically, reaction and activation free energies--even when the phase-space overlap between potentials is critically low. Ultimately, this approach establishes a vital diagnostic protocol to achieve affordable cross-model consensus on materials chemistry properties without redundant, resource-intensive simulations.

Current Large Language Models (LLMs) typically rely on coarse-grained national labels for pluralistic value alignment. However, such macro-level supervision often obscures intra-country value heterogeneity, yielding a loose alignment. We argue that resolving this limitation requires shifting from national labels to multi-dimensional demographic constraints, which can identify groups with predictable, high-consensus value preference. To this end, we propose DVMap (High-Consensus Demographic-Value Mapping), a framework for fine-grained pluralistic value alignment. In this framework, we first present a demographic archetype extraction strategy to construct a high-quality value alignment corpus of 56,152 samples from the World Values Survey (WVS) by strictly retaining respondents with consistent value preferences under identical demographics. Over this corpus, we introduce a Structured Chain-of-Thought (CoT) mechanism that explicitly guides LLMs to reason about demographic-value correlations. Subsequently, we employ Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) to achieve adaptive anchoring of value distributions. To rigorously evaluate generalization, we further establish a triple-generalization benchmark (spanning cross-demographic, cross-country, and cross-value) comprising 21,553 samples. Experimental results demonstrate that DVMap effectively learns the manifold mapping from demographics to values, exhibiting strong generalization and robustness. On cross-demographic tests, Qwen3-8B-DVMap achieves 48.6% accuracy, surpassing the advanced open-source LLM DeepSeek-v3.2 (45.1%). The source code and dataset are available at https://github.com/EnlightenedAI/DVMap.

Computational social choice and algorithmic decision theory offer rich aggregation theory but no end-to-end process for egalitarian self-governance: aggregation, deliberation, amendment, and consensus are each considered in isolation, with key metric-space aggregators being NP-hard. Here, we propose \emph{constitutional governance in metric spaces}, integrating these stages into a protocol for constitutional governance. A community's \emph{legal corpus} comprises its \emph{laws} together with a \emph{constitution}, each being a point in a metric space, with the constitution specifying the supermajority threshold required to amend it. Members vote to amend the legal corpus by proposing their ideal points, followed by rounds of submitting \emph{public proposals} carrying \emph{supermajority public support}; a polynomial-time \emph{aggregation rule} scores each proposal, and a supported proposal whose score is positive and maximal for two rounds is adopted; if none is found the status quo is retained. Public proposals can be sourced from deliberation, vote aggregation, or AI mediation. With Constitutional Consensus, a community can run the constitutional governance protocol on members' personal computing devices (e.g., smartphones), achieving digital sovereignty. By drawing on metric-space aggregation, reality-aware social choice, supermajority amendment, constitutional consensus, deliberative coalition formation, and AI mediation, we provide a comprehensive framework for the constitutional governance of digital communities and organisations.

Practitioners deploying multi-agent large language model (LLM) systems must currently choose between communication topologies such as chain, star, mesh, and richer variants without any pre-inference diagnostic for which topology will amplify drift, converge to consensus, or remain robust under perturbation. Existing evaluation answers these questions only post hoc and only for the task measured. We introduce a structural diagnostic for multi-agent LLM communication graphs based on the successor representation $M = (I - γP)^{-1}$ of the row-stochastic communication operator, and we connect three of its spectral quantities, the spectral radius $ρ(M)$, the spectral gap $Δ(M)$, and the condition number $κ(M)$, to three distinct failure modes. We derive closed-form spectra for the chain, star, and mesh under row-stochastic normalization, and validate the predictions on a 12-step structured state-tracking task with Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct over 100 independent trials. The condition number is a perfect rank-order predictor of empirical perturbation robustness ($r_s = 1.0$); the spectral gap partially predicts consensus dynamics ($r_s = 0.5$); and the spectral radius is perfectly \emph{inverted} with respect to cumulative error ($r_s = -1.0$). We trace this inversion to a regime in which linear spectra are blind to non-contracting bias drift, and we propose an affine-noise extension of the predictive map that recovers the empirical ordering. We read this as a first step toward representational, drift-aware structural diagnostics for multi-agent LLM systems, sitting alongside classical spectral and consensus theory.

In this paper, the effects of graph gluing operations in networks of multi-agent systems and their impact on system performance are investigated. In many practical applications, multiple multi-agent subsystems must be interconnected through communication links to accomplish complex tasks, resulting in a larger communication network. Such interconnections modify the underlying graph topology and consequently affect the consensus behavior and convergence rate of the network. In particular, this paper examines both bridge gluing and interface gluing and analyzes how the number and structure of communication links between subsystems influence the Fiedler eigenvalue of the resulting graph. Since the Fiedler eigenvalue is directly related to the convergence rate of consensus dynamics, the proposed analysis establishes a clear relationship between interconnection strategies, algebraic connectivity, and system performance. The results provide theoretical insight into how different gluing mechanisms alter the spectral properties of the graph Laplacian and, in turn, the convergence characteristics of the networked multi-agent system. Simulation studies are presented to illustrate the theoretical findings and to validate the effectiveness of the proposed framework.

Large language model (LLM) agents increasingly collaborate over peer-to-peer networks to improve their reliability. However, these same interactions can also become a source of vulnerability, as unreliable or Byzantine agents may sway neighboring agents toward incorrect conclusions and degrade overall system performance. Existing methods rely on leader-based coordination or self-reported confidence, both of which are susceptible to adversarial manipulation. We study decentralized LLM multi-agent systems (LLM-MAS) and propose Self-Anchored Consensus (SAC), a fully decentralized iterative filter-and-refine protocol in which agents iteratively exchange responses, locally evaluate and filter unreliable messages, and refine their own outputs. We present $(F{+}1)$-robustness conditions for the communication graph that ensure honest agents preserve and propagate reliable information despite Byzantine influence. Experiments on mathematical and commonsense reasoning benchmarks show that SAC effectively suppresses Byzantine influence and consistently improves performance across diverse communication topologies, whereas prior methods degrade under adversarial conditions.

LLM code-generation pipelines often sample multiple candidates and select one final answer without access to a complete oracle. Existing pipelines mix textual voting, ranking, and execution-based agreement, but the relative contribution of each component remains unclear. We study 18 configurations across different models, thinking levels, and benchmarks, comparing output-pattern majority voting, weighted voting, MBR-Exec, and SemanticVote - a method that clusters candidates by execution fingerprints on LLM-generated inputs. Three findings emerge. (1) The best execution-based selector exceeds output-pattern majority voting by 19-52 percentage points on every configuration, with every execution-based selector exceeding it by at least 18 points. (2) Once candidates are executed on diverse inputs, aggregation rule has limited effect: SemanticVote, weighted voting, and MBR-Exec are statistically indistinguishable across all 18 configurations. The largest factor is input quality: sketch-based input generation consistently outperforms direct LLM generation by 0.6-2.1 pp and random fuzzing by up to 11.3 pp. (3) Thinking level interacts differently with selection families: deeper thinking improves majority voting by 12 pp but execution-based methods stay flat or degrade as candidate diversity falls. These results frame inference-time code selection as a signal-quality problem rather than an aggregation-rule problem: when oracles are unavailable, the behavioral evidence matters more than the aggregation rule.

Distributed agents in real-world settings frequently must coordinate under uncertainty with only partial observations. Coordination is necessary to share beliefs to aid in task completion, but communication costs bandwidth, introduces latency, and if done poorly, can degrade collective reasoning. This tension is especially acute in bandwidth-constrained deployments such as distributed sensing networks, autonomous reconnaissance, and collaborative cyber defense, where excessive transmission carries direct operational costs. Existing work has focused on multi-agent exploration and communication strategies, but not on how communication frequency and content jointly shape the collective belief state. Central to this challenge is the degree to which agents maintain compatible internal beliefs about the environment, a property we term \textit{epistemic alignment}. When agents share beliefs effectively, they converge on correct hypotheses; when communication is poorly designed, agents may converge confidently on wrong ones. We formalize this distinction and show it is not detectable from coordination metrics alone such as Jensen-Shannon Divergence or rate to consensus.

This paper presents NoisyCoconut, a novel inference-time method that enhances large language model (LLM) reliability by manipulating internal representations. Unlike fine-tuning methods that require extensive retraining, NoisyCoconut operates directly on model representations during inference and requires no retraining. Rather than training models to reason in latent space, we inject controlled noise into latent trajectories to generate diverse reasoning paths. Agreement among these paths provides a confidence signal, enabling models to abstain when uncertain. We demonstrate that this approach achieves effective coverage-accuracy tradeoffs across multiple reasoning benchmarks without requiring access to training data or modification of model parameters. This approach provides a practical pathway to improving the reliability of LLM outputs while maintaining compatibility with existing models. Our experiments show that unanimous agreement among noise-perturbed paths reduces error rates from 40-70% to below 15%, enabling models to exceed 95% accuracy on mathematical reasoning tasks through selective abstention.

Federated Multi-Label Learning is a distributed paradigm where multiple clients possess heterogeneous multi-label data and perform collaborative learning under privacy constraints without sharing raw data. However, modeling label correlations under heterogeneous distributions remains challenging. Due to client-specific label spaces and varying co-occurrence patterns, correlations learned by individual clients inevitably deviate from the global structure, a phenomenon we term label correlation drift. To address this, we propose FedHarmony, a framework that harmonizes heterogeneous label correlations across clients. It introduces consensus correlation, capturing agreement among other clients and serving as a global teacher to correct biased local estimates. During aggregation, FedHarmony evaluates each client by both data size and correlation quality, assigning weights accordingly. Moreover, we develop an accelerated optimization algorithm for FedHarmony and theoretically establish faster convergence without sacrificing accuracy. Experiments on real-world federated multi-label datasets show that FedHarmony consistently outperforms state-of-the-art methods.

As AI transitions toward multi-agent systems (MAS) to solve complex workflows, research paradigms operate on the axiomatic assumption that agent collaboration mirrors the "Wisdom of the Crowd". We challenge this assumption by formalizing the Consensus Paradox: a phenomenon where agentic swarms prioritize internal architectural agreement over external logical truth. Through a 36 experiments encompassing 12,804 trajectories across three state-of-the-art (SOTA) benchmarks (GAIA, Multi-Challenge, and SWE-bench), we prove the Inverse-Wisdom Law: in kinship-dominant swarms, adding logical agents increases the stability of erroneous trajectories rather than the probability of truth. The introduction of additional logical audits converges the system toward a Logic Saturation where internal entropy hits zero while factual error hits unity. By evaluating the interaction between the 3 preeminent SOTA models (Gemini 3.1 Pro, Claude Sonnet 4.6, and GPT-5.4), we establish the Architectural Tribalism Asymmetry as a mechanistic law of transformer weights. We demonstrate that terminal swarm integrity is strictly gated by the synthesizer's receptive logic, rather than aggregate agent quality. We define the Tribalism Coefficient and the Sycophantic Weight as the primary mechanistic determinants of swarm failure. Finally, we establish the Heterogeneity Mandate as a foundational safety requirement for resilient agentic architectures.

Multi-agent debate, where teams of LLMs iteratively exchange rationales and vote on answers, is widely deployed under the assumption that peer review filters hallucinations. Yet the failure dynamics of homogeneous debate remain poorly understood, therefore we report findings from a controlled empirical study of teams of $N{=}10$ homogeneous agents (Qwen2.5-7B, Llama-3.1-8B, Ministral-3-8B) across $R{=}3$ debate rounds on two high-difficulty benchmarks (GSM-Hard and MMLU-Hard). We compare peer debate against isolated self-correction and a stochastic noise control that injects rationales from unrelated problems. We decompose debate failure into three model-dependent pathways: sycophantic conformity, where agents uncritically adopt majority answers (modal adoption up to 85.5%); contextual fragility, where peer rationales destabilize previously correct reasoning (vulnerability rate up to 70.0%); and consensus collapse, where plurality voting discards correct answers already present in the generation pool (oracle gap up to 32.3 percentage points). Ablations over communication density ($K \in \{2,4,9\}$) and sampling temperature ($T \in \{0.4, 0.7\}$) show that conformity reaches high levels at minimal peer exposure ($K{=}2$) and intensifies with greater initial diversity. Across all configurations, debate consumes 2.1-3.4$\times$ more tokens (up to 28,631 tokens per problem) than self-correction for equal or lower accuracy. Our results indicate that, within the 7-8B parameter class, homogeneous teams without structured roles do not benefit from unguided peer exchange, and that isolated self-correction consistently offers a more favorable cost-accuracy tradeoff.

Open-vocabulary semantic segmentation (OVSS) in remote sensing images is a promising task that employs textual descriptions for identifying undefined land cover categories. Despite notable advances, existing methods typically employ a static inference paradigm, overlooking the distinct distribution of each scene, resulting in semantic ambiguity in diverse land covers and incomplete foreground activation. Motivated by this, we propose Seeking Consensus, termed SeeCo, a plug-and-play framework to boost the performance of training-free OVSS models in remote sensing images, which recalibrates arbitrary OVSS models on-the-fly by seeking dual consensus: geometric consensus learning (GCL) through multi-view consistent observations and semantic consensus learning (SCL) via textual description adaptive calibration, which assists collaborative recalibration of visual and textual semantics. The two consensus are injected via an online consensus injector (OCI), effectively alleviating the under-activation and semantic bias. SeeCo requires no specific training process, yet recalibrates semantic-geometric alignment for each unique scene during inference. Extensive experiments on eight remote sensing OVSS benchmarks show consistent gains, proving its effectiveness and universality.

We introduce NONSAC (Non-Minimal Sampling and Consensus), a general framework for robust and scalable model estimation from arbitrarily large datasets contaminated with noise and outliers. NONSAC repeatedly samples non-minimal subsets of data and generates model hypotheses using a robust estimator, producing multiple candidate models. The final model is selected based on a predefined scoring rule that evaluates hypothesis quality. Our framework is estimator-agnostic and can be integrated with existing geometric fitting algorithms such as RANSAC to improve both scalability and robustness to outliers. We propose and evaluate various scoring rules for NONSAC on relative camera pose estimation, Perspective-n-Point, and point cloud registration. Furthermore, we showcase the applicability of NONSAC to correspondence-free point cloud registration by hypothesizing all-to-all correspondences.

A primary goal of online deliberation platforms is to identify ideas that are broadly agreeable to a community of users through their expressed preferences. Yet, consensus elicitation should ideally extend beyond the specific statements provided by users and should incorporate the relative salience of particular topics. We address this issue by modelling consensus as an interval in a one-dimensional opinion space derived from potentially high-dimensional data via embedding and dimensionality reduction. We define an objective that maximizes expected agreement within a hypothesis interval where the expectation is over an underlying distribution of issues, implicitly taking into account their salience. We propose an efficient Empirical Risk Minimization (ERM) algorithm and establish PAC-learning guarantees. Our initial experiments demonstrate the performance of our algorithm and examine more efficient approaches to identifying optimal consensus regions. We find that through selectively querying users on an existing sample of statements, we can reduce the number of queries needed to a practical number.

Multi-agent large language model (LLM) architectures increasingly rely on response-level aggregation, such as Majority Voting (MAJ), to raise reasoning ceilings. However, in open environments, agents are highly susceptible to stealthy contextual corruption, such as targeted prompt injections. We reveal a critical structural vulnerability in current multi-agent systems: response-level aggregation collapses when corrupted agents form a local majority. Because voting aggregates fully-formed conclusions, it is blind to flawed intermediate logic. To overcome this systematic limitation, we propose the Token-Level Round-Robin (RR) Collaboration, where agents sequentially interleave generation within a shared auto-regressive context. We formalize this process as a discrete-time dynamical system, proving that token-level interleaving transitions aggregation from a brittle counting of final votes (a linear sum) to a dynamic, interwoven chain of logic (a non-linear operator product). Through this theoretical lens, we prove that the honest model's restorative pull can overpower adversarial corruptions, even when corrupted agents form a majority. We conduct an exhaustive empirical evaluation across diverse reasoning benchmarks and demonstrate that while MAJ collapses when corrupted agents reach a majority, RR maintains robust accuracy well beyond this critical threshold.

Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) are inclined explore Small Language Models (SLMs) as edge-native constitutional firewalls to vet proposals and mitigate semantic social engineering. While scaling inference-time compute (System 2) enhances formal logic, its efficacy in highly adversarial, cryptoeconomic governance environments remains underexplored. To address this, we introduce Sentinel-Bench, an 840-inference empirical framework executing a strict intra-model ablation on Qwen-3.5-9B. By toggling latent reasoning across frozen weights, we isolate the impact of inference-time compute against an adversarial Optimism DAO dataset. Our findings reveal a severe compute-accuracy inversion. The autoregressive baseline (System 1) achieved 100% adversarial robustness, 100% juridical consistency, and state finality in under 13 seconds. Conversely, System 2 reasoning introduced catastrophic instability, fundamentally driven by a 26.7% Reasoning Non-Convergence (cognitive collapse) rate. This collapse degraded trial-to-trial consensus stability to 72.6% and imposed a 17x latency overhead, introducing critical vulnerabilities to Governance Extractable Value (GEV) and hardware centralization. While rare (1.5% of adversarial trials), we empirically captured "Reasoning-Induced Sycophancy," where the model generated significantly longer internal monologues (averaging 25,750 characters) to rationalize failing the adversarial trap. We conclude that for edge-native SLMs operating under Byzantine Fault Tolerance (BFT) constraints, System 1 parameterized intuition is structurally and economically superior to System 2 iterative deliberation for decentralized consensus. Code and Dataset: https://github.com/smarizvi110/sentinel-bench

We investigate Functional Majority Voting (FMV), a method based on functional consensus for code generation with Large Language Models, which identifies a representative solution from multiple generations using their runtime execution signatures on test inputs. We find that FMV is an effective test-time inference strategy, substantially boosting performance on LiveCodeBench without a large compute overhead. Furthermore, we extend the utility of functional consensus and apply it as an aggregation strategy for label-free Test-Time Reinforcement Learning. We demonstrate that this increases pass@1 on holdout tasks, but find no evidence of self-improvement beyond the base model's performance ceiling.

Cooperative transport and manipulation of heavy or bulky payloads by multiple manipulators requires coordinated formation tracking, while simultaneously enforcing strict safety constraints in varying environments with limited communication and real-time computation budgets. This paper presents a distributed control framework that achieves consensus coordination with safety guarantees via hierarchical event-triggered control barrier functions (CBFs). We first develop a consensus-based protocol that relies solely on local neighbor information to enforce both translational and rotational consistency in task space. Building on this coordination layer, we propose a three-level hierarchical event-triggered safety architecture with CBFs, which is integrated with a risk-aware leader selection and smooth switching strategy to reduce online computation. The proposed approach is validated through real-world hardware experiments using two Franka manipulators operating with static obstacles, as well as comprehensive simulations demonstrating scalable multi-arm cooperation with dynamic obstacles. Results demonstrate higher precision cooperation under strict safety constraints, achieving substantially reduced computational cost and communication frequency compared to baseline methods.

Deep multi-view clustering has achieved remarkable progress but remains vulnerable to complex noise in real-world applications. Existing noisy robust methods predominantly rely on a simplified binary assumption, treating data as either perfectly clean or completely corrupted. This overlooks the prevalent existence of heterogeneous observation noise, where contamination intensity varies continuously across data. To bridge this gap, we propose a novel framework termed Quality-Aware Robust Multi-View Clustering (QARMVC). Specifically, QARMVC employs an information bottleneck mechanism to extract intrinsic semantics for view reconstruction. Leveraging the insight that noise disrupts semantic integrity and impedes reconstruction, we utilize the resulting reconstruction discrepancy to precisely quantify fine-grained contamination intensity and derive instance-level quality scores. These scores are integrated into a hierarchical learning strategy: at the feature level, a quality-weighted contrastive objective is designed to adaptively suppress the propagation of noise; at the fusion level, a high-quality global consensus is constructed via quality-weighted aggregation, which is subsequently utilized to align and rectify local views via mutual information maximization. Extensive experiments on five benchmark datasets demonstrate that QARMVC consistently outperforms state-of-the-art baselines, particularly in scenarios with heterogeneous noise intensities.

Grounded Laplacians provide the spectral link between external information and network convergence. This paper establishes positive-stability results for grounded Laplacians in directed signed matrix-weighted networks, where directionality, antagonism, and singular edge weight matrices coexist. First, under in-degree dominance and positive-negative reachability, we derive explicit local thresholds for the grounding gains. Second, a scaled, kernel-based certificate replaces the unscaled degree condition with a signed matrix-weighted Dirichlet decomposition and a joint-kernel test for the scaled symmetric part. The computable margin $γ_p$ lower-bounds the minimum real part of the spectrum and certifies exponential contraction in the $P$-norm. Under absolute generalized balance, the kernel-intersection test is given; the balanced and definite-edge unbalanced undirected cases follow. As an application, non-trivial consensus (NTC) on signed matrix-weighted networks is studied. Informed agents, external signals and coupling terms are designed to steer all agents to any prescribed nonzero state without requiring structural balance. Switching topology case retains non-trivial consensus result under certain conditions. Realizing NTC on signed matrix-weighted networks demonstrates that groups with both cooperative and antagonistic multi-dimensional interactions can achieve consensus, which was previously deemed exclusive to fully cooperative groups.

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.

Reaching consensus on massive discussion networks is critical for reducing noise and achieving optimal collective outcomes. However, the natural tendency of humans to preserve their initial ideas constrains the emergence of global solutions. To address this, Collective Intelligence (CI) platforms facilitate the discovery of globally superior solutions. We introduce a dynamical system based on the standard $O(N)$ model to drive the aggregation of semantically similar ideas. The system consists of users represented as nodes in a $d=2$ lattice with nearest-neighbor interactions, where their ideas are represented by semantic vectors computed with a pretrained embedding model. We analyze the system's equilibrium states as a function of the coupling parameter $β$. Our results show that $β> 0$ drives the system toward a ferromagnetic-like phase (global consensus), while $β< 0$ induces an antiferromagnetic-like state (maximum dissent), where users maximize semantic distance from their neighbors. This framework offers a controllable method for managing the tradeoff between cohesion and diversity in CI platforms.

How hard is it to achieve consensus in a social network under uncertainty? In this paper we model this problem as a social graph of agents where each vertex is initially colored red or blue. The goal of the agents is to achieve consensus, which is when the colors of all agents align. Agents attempt to do this locally through steps in which an agent changes their color to the color of the majority of their neighbors. In real life, agents may not know exactly how many of their neighbors are red or blue, which introduces uncertainty into this process. Modeling uncertainty as perturbations of relative magnitude $1+\varepsilon$ to these color neighbor counts, we show that even small values of $\varepsilon$ greatly hinder the ability to achieve consensus in a social network. We prove theoretically tight upper and lower bounds on the price of uncertainty, a metric defined in previous work by Balcan et al. to quantify the effect of uncertainty in network games.

Distributed empirical risk minimization (ERM) is often studied through two influential yet seemingly separate families of methods: CoCoA-type algorithms, derived from distributed dual coordinate ascent, and ADMM-type algorithms, derived from consensus and proximal splitting. In this paper, we investigate the connection of the two types of algorithms from a unified primal-dual perspective. We show that consensus ADMM, linearized consensus ADMM, two distributed proximal ADMM variants, and ridge-regularized CoCoA can all be written in a common update form involving a global primal variable and block dual variables. This reformulation makes several previously hidden connections explicit: For ridge-regularized ERM, CoCoA coincides with a particular proximal ADMM scheme at the level of the dual update. Moreover, consensus ADMM on the primal problem is equivalent to proximal ADMM on the dual problem under an explicit parameter mapping together with a sign reversal of the saddle objective; similar correspondences also hold for the linearized variants. These results indicates that the ADMM-type algorithms, when fine tuned, performs at least as good as CoCoA, under ridge regularized ERM problems. The unified view also yields a natural primal-dual gap stopping criterion for consensus ADMM and a unified $O(1/T)$ ergodic convergence analysis for the ADMM-type methods. Experiments on synthetic regression problems and real SVM datasets support the predicted relationships, clarify the role of tuning parameters, and show that suitably tuned ADMM variants can outperform CoCoA in the ridge-regularized setting.

In applied statistics and machine learning, the gold standards used for training are often biased and almost always noisy. Dawid and Skene's justifiably popular crowdsourcing model adjusts for rater sensitivity and specificity, but fails to capture distributional properties of rating data gathered for training, which in turn biases training. In this study, we introduce a general purpose measurement-error model with which we can infer consensus categories by adding item-level effects for difficulty, discriminativeness, and guessability. We further show how to constrain the bimodal posterior of these models to avoid adversarial raters. We validate our model's goodness of fit with posterior predictive checks, the Bayesian analogue of $χ^2$ tests, and assess its predictive accuracy using leave-one-out cross-validation. We illustrate our new model with two well-studied data sets, binary rating data for caries in dental X-rays and implication in natural language.