Multi-Agent Debate

LLM agents will increasingly act in socially structured settings where role, audience, and relational context can shape what is advantageous or costly to say. We study whether such social structure, without any explicit objective in the prompt, changes what an agent expresses publicly relative to an off-the-record (OTR) channel elicited under the same condition. We introduce a dual-channel debate framework in which agents produce public utterances that enter the shared history alongside OTR responses that are recorded but never shown to the other participant. Across 10 models, 3 scenarios, and 5 variations within each scenario, alignment-inducing settings produce systematic public-OTR divergence in the targeted agent, with its decision divergence rising from a $\sim$3% baseline to roughly 40%. The effect is consistent across four aggregate analyses: stance, semantic similarity, natural language inference, and survey responses. In some cases, the OTR response explicitly attributes public accommodation to relational pressures, such as career risk or sponsorship obligation. The findings suggest that agent evaluation should extend beyond explicit goals and detect emergent objectives. We present a dual-channel evaluation framework and complementary behavioral measures that operationalize this assessment.

Multi-agent systems are increasingly used for forecasting future events, as deliberation among multiple LLMs is believed to improve reasoning and calibration. Yet existing approaches overlook a critical design choice: what information each agent receives. When all agents are given identical evidence, deliberation collapses into herding rather than genuine belief revision, leaving multi-agent systems little better than a single agent. We identify this as a fundamental gap and propose designed information asymmetry to close it: by partitioning evidence into shared public and disjoint private subsets, each agent holds exclusive knowledge that can only reach others through deliberation. We theoretically show that this decomposition reduces inter-agent error correlation, and instantiate it in InfoDelphi, a framework combining relevance-aware evidence routing, rationale-based iterative deliberation, and confidence-weighted aggregation. On PolyGym, a benchmark of 375 binary forecasting questions derived from real-world prediction markets, InfoDelphi outperforms the strongest single-agent and multi-agent baselines by 12--18% in Brier score and 4--8 percentage points in accuracy. More detailed experiments confirm that removing information asymmetry eliminates most deliberation gains, establishing diversity of input as the key enabler of effective multi-agent reasoning.

Existing multi-agent debate frameworks suffer from two critical limitations: they rely on static architectures where agent roles and coordination patterns are fixed at design time, and they require instantiating multiple model copies, incurring substantial computational overhead. We propose Mixture of Debaters (MoD), a unified framework that enables dynamic self-debate within a single model by leveraging the Mixture-of-Experts paradigm. We address three key challenges in adapting MoE for dialectical reasoning: (1) dual-routing that decouples role allocation from process flow, dynamically determining when to debate versus when to synthesize; (2) momentum switching that smooths token-level routing with local context, reducing expert-switch jitter; and (3) unified self-debate that encapsulates diverse debating personas into lightweight expert modules, eliminating inter-agent communication while preserving behavioral diversity. Extensive experiments on multimodal benchmarks demonstrate that MoD outperforms both single-model baselines and conventional multi-agent systems, achieving superior accuracy with 3.7x lower latency and 87% reduction in token consumption.The source code can be accessed at https://github.com/YongLD/MoD.

Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) with Majority Voting is a dominant paradigm for improving LLM reasoning, yet its effectiveness rests on the Condorcet Jury Theorem's assumption of independent errors. Because contemporary LLMs share similar pretraining corpora, their errors are strongly correlated, causing the majority to systematically suppress correct minority opinions, a phenomenon we term Minority Truth. Through debates among three heterogeneous LLM agents on six benchmarks, we find that roughly one in four divergent cases has the minority holding the correct answer, yielding a 10-percentage-point theoretical recovery margin. We propose Minority Sentinel, a lightweight meta-classifier that extracts a multi-dimensional debate fingerprint from debate logs and trains a LightGBM model to decide when to overturn majority voting. Minority Sentinel achieves a stable Flip Precision of 81.2% with positive Net Gain across all six datasets and all 20 random seed trials, demonstrating that debate logs contain sufficient behavioral signals for a non-LLM classifier to reliably recover suppressed minorities without degrading system accuracy. The LLM-as-Judge baseline yields negative Net Gain despite higher recall, confirming that flip safety, not recovery volume, determines intervention value.

Foundation-model agents in multi-step, open-ended environments frequently suffer from compounding errors, where early mistakes contaminate long-horizon trajectories. While Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) succeeds in deterministic domains, agents in subjective tasks like persuasion experience severe problem drift and sycophantic conformity. We identify semantic leakage in standard Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) as a reproducible trigger for these failures, as standard RAG prioritizes vocabulary overlap over logical necessity. To eliminate this leakage, we introduce Taxonomic Strategy RAG (TS-RAG), a systems intervention that routes strategies through a discrete categorical bottleneck to decouple argumentative structure from topical content. Zero-shot, cross-domain evaluations demonstrate that TS-RAG significantly improves the transfer of abstract logic where standard semantic retrieval collapses. Crucially, TS-RAG acts as a "capability bridge" in asymmetric deployments, empowering lightweight persuaders to consistently defeat parametrically superior opponents (improving win rates from 70.5 to 78.5) and accelerating argumentative efficiency. Finally, we introduce trace-level diagnostics via a turn-by-turn Debate State Representation (DSR), demonstrating the necessity of strict constraints to prevent evaluation collapse via default agentic sycophancy.

Heterogeneous LLM debate is motivated by the promise that diverse peers correct one another, but the same exchange that carries correction also carries adversarial influence. We measure which dominates by tracking how a heterogeneous peer changes the honest agents' revision behavior: how often they change their answer, and whether the change is corrective or harmful. We compare matched panels (homogeneous baseline, honest-mixed, and adversarial-mixed) and contaminated panels in which a malicious same-family peer is already present, spanning four model families and three reasoning benchmarks. An honest heterogeneous peer sharply lowers harmful revision, and an adversarial one reverses it. For Llama-3.1-70B defenders on MATH-hard, the honest-slot harmful-revision rate falls from 89% in the homogeneous panel to 35% with an honest peer, and an adversarial peer returns it to 90%. The conditional rate hides this damage on weak defenders, but the end-of-debate flip rate exposes it. The pattern keeps its sign across families and benchmarks while its magnitude varies with the defender-benchmark regime. We also measure the effects when an adversarial same-family peer is already present: an honest heterogeneous peer lowers both harmful revision and the rate at which initially-correct answers are lost. On the same Llama-3.1-70B setting, the added honest peer cuts the flip rate on initially-correct items from 31% under a same-family adversary to 6%. Heterogeneity is therefore not only an attack surface but, when an adversary is already present, also a defense.

Multi-agent LLM deliberation, where agents exchange and revise answers over several rounds, is increasingly used to improve reasoning and accuracy, yet how and why it works is rarely modelled. Such deliberation mirrors how humans reach decisions. As social animals we are pulled both by the group, the herd effect that classical opinion-dynamics models such as DeGroot and Friedkin--Johnsen capture, and by our own internal belief, which they do not. We model multi-agent deliberation as a closed-loop dynamical system in which each agent carries a hidden internal belief, its anchor, that continually pulls its opinion regardless of its neighbours. We show this anchor can be recovered from the deliberation alone, and that it explains a behaviour classical consensus rules forbid: an agent's confidence in the correct answer can climb past where any agent started, escaping the space (convexhull) formed by the initial beliefs. Checking whether the recovered anchor also predicts held-out runs (generalizes) gives a simple test for when a model is truly driven bysuch an anchor. Across three open-weight model families this is a spectrum, not all-or-nothing. All anchors' influence are about equally strongly, but they differ in where the anchor sits, and only when it sits far from the initial opinions does deliberation escape the hull and need the full closed-loop model.

AI systems deployed in legal workflows hallucinate at rates that aggregate metrics report at ~52%, but this average conceals where errors concentrate and in which direction they run, leaving compliance officers without an actionable signal for trustworthy deployment. We present LegalHalluLens, an auditing framework with three components: typed hallucination profiles across four legally-motivated claim categories (numeric, temporal, obligation/entitlement, factual) over CUAD (Hendrycks et al., 2021); a Risk Direction Index (RDI) that reduces omission-versus-invention bias to a single deployment-comparable scalar; and a typed debate pipeline calibrated to both magnitudes and directions. Across 510 contracts and 249,252 clause-level instances we measure a within-model gap of approximately 38-40 pp between obligation/numeric and temporal claims that aggregate reporting hides, and show that two systems with matched 52% rates can carry opposite RDIs. The debate pipeline reduces fabricated detections by 45% with per-category gains tracking the diagnosis, matching commercial APIs with a substantially smaller backbone (4B active parameters). Typed profiles and RDI surface failure modes that aggregate metrics hide; we further show these diagnostics serve as calibration inputs for multi-agent debate pipelines, where Skeptic challenges and asymmetric gates targeted at measured failure modes outperform generically-tuned debate. The framework supports direction-aware procurement, accountability, and agent design for legal AI deployed in the wild.

Fine-grained action recognition in egocentric video is challenging for Vision-Language Models (VLMs): actions often differ only in small visual cues, and a single model tends to be biased toward a subset of these cues. We propose Divide, Deliberate, Decide, a fully-local, zero-shot multi-agent framework in which (i) a VLM orchestrator chunks the video and proposes a top-k candidate label list per segment, (ii) an ensemble of heterogeneous VLM specialists, drawn from different open model families, engages in a structured deliberation that includes a peer-consultation round of questions, and (iii) agent rankings are aggregated with a Borda count and the orchestrator re-ranks its own prediction in light of the specialists' evidence. The entire pipeline runs locally with no fine-tuning. Experiments show that our method positively improves zero-shot action recognition performance over the baseline, highlighting the influence of a heterogeneous deliberation step, showing that the gain stems from decorrelated model priors rather than from additional compute.

Multi-agent systems (MAS) are credited with solving complex problems, yet their agents routinely act on context that may be false. Prior work shows single LLMs are swayed by false context, and MAS can be compromised by adversarial agents persuading peers. We study the benign case: agents follow one protocol, none intends to deceive, but some read a misleading passage. We study it with MINT, 10,278 LLM-written misinformation passages in eight styles, testing three open-weight models on commonsense reasoning, knowledge QA, and moral judgment. A relevant false passage costs a single agent 0.12-0.43 accuracy; irrelevant or content-free passages typically cost at most 0.06. Debate looks robust because uninformed agents outnumber misinformed ones. With one of three misinformed, it is no better than choosing the majority over equally exposed independent samples. Interaction helps only with a misinformed majority, recovering up to 0.24 accuracy over voting (0.29 under consensus). A one-sentence unreliability warning recovers up to 0.18 accuracy under voting (0.28 under consensus), at no significant cost under voting when context is true. Robustness should be judged against exposure-matched baselines, with prompt-level skepticism as cheap first defense.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly assessed and utilized in the field of Argument Mining (AM), thanks to their strong general reasoning capabilities. However, standard training-free models often miss sophisticated details, specifically in contexts where two parts of the text have to be analyzed together. Furthermore, self-correction mechanisms tend to reinforce initial hallucinations in reasoning. Overcoming these limitations typically requires expensive, domain-specific supervised fine-tuning. Recent work has shown that a multi-agent paradigm can address such weaknesses for the component classification task through dialectical refinement with a Proponent-Opponent-Judge architecture, setting a promising direction for training-free approaches in the field. In this paper, we extend and evaluate this framework on the Argument Relation Identification and Classification (ARIC) task, reformulating it as a debate over component pairs. Besides that, we introduce a confidence gating mechanism that enables debating only on the uncertain cases and accepting the initial prediction when confidence is high. On the UKP Argument Annotated Essays v2 corpus, we demonstrate that the selective debate achieves the highest Macro F1 among all training-free methods, while debate over all samples degrades performance below that of one of the baselines. All generative approaches also outperform fine-tuned RoBERTa models on Macro F1, suggesting that the under-representation of the Attack class was more damaging to supervised fine-tuning than to inference-only models. Additionally, our framework produces human-readable debate transcripts, offering interpretability absent from both single-agent and supervised classifiers.

Multiagent language model systems, such as collaborative reasoning and debate, produce multiple correlated candidate answers and confidence signals. However, these signals are usually calibrated only at the individual agent level, and provide no principled confidence estimate for the system's final answer. We formulate this as a confidence composition problem where combining confidence across agents and reasoning stages while preserving both selective utility and probabilistic reliability. We study confidence-aware routing and log-odds pooling protocols that select among candidate answers and output a system-level confidence. Across five benchmarks, 30 heterogeneous and homogeneous model pairs, and two confidence estimators, our gated-fusion methods improve AUARC and reduce Brier score over single agent, standard debate, and selective debate baselines, while retaining competitive weighted F1-score as a correctness metric. We further show that our log-odds fusion is overconfident due to correlated intermediate signals. We propose a shared dependence discount that substantially improves reliability while preserving predictions.

Multi-agent debate (MAD) can improve large language model reasoning, but fixed debate pipelines often waste computation and can amplify correlated errors among similar agents. We propose ARMOR-MAD, a training-free heterogeneous MAD framework that treats debate as conditional computation. ARMOR-MAD combines three components: Pre-debate Agreement Routing (PAR) decides whether independently generated Round-0 answers require debate; Early Agreement Stopping Evaluator (EASE) stops debate after convergence; and Semantic Outlier Detection (SOD) down-weights abnormal final answers during aggregation. Across MATH Level 5, GSM8K, MMLU, and MMLU-Pro, ARMOR-MAD consistently improves over fixed-round heterogeneous debate with the same model pool, reaching 65.5%, 96.5%, 90.0%, and 81.5% accuracy, respectively. The results suggest that genuine model heterogeneity and agreement-based control are both important for making MAD more accurate and efficient.

Multi-agent debate frameworks have been shown to improve large language model performance in convergent tasks, but they are currently optimized in a way that heavily favors final output accuracy rather than stability of the process. During long-horizon exchanges reactive systems under sustained perturbations often experience logic degradation, argument repetition, and role drift. To structurally prevent the identity loss and maintain the process fidelity, we introduce Knowledge-Grounded Counterfactual Reasoning (KG-CFR), a dual-stage architecture that enforces a strict separation of concerns between a private, retrieval-augmented planning buffer, and a public execution layer. We assess this system in Dynamic Resource Allocation under Uncertainty (DRAU), a dedicated 1v1v1 environment, introducing diversity as distinct from standard debate settings. Over 270 completely factorial crisis simulation trajectories with stochastic environmental shocks, KG-CFR prevents judge-detected critical post-shock degradation (defined as a quality shift, $Δ\le -0.20$) in more than 95% of perturbed runs, increasing the overall argument quality from 0.694 to 0.822. Our primary contribution is the demonstration of architectural decoupling being an important factor of systemic resilience enhancement under sustained pressure without quality loss. Furthermore, we introduce custom vector metrics for discourse divergence and plan-execution alignment that provide strong, directionally consistent evidence of operational stability. Our ablation experiments suggest that the proper doctrinal grounding can be an equally important factor for argument quality, as the prospective planning. KG-CFR, according to our initial metric evaluations, reduces semantic looping, by preserving the agent's consistency with the original plan.

Evaluating reasoning quality in multi-agent LLM systems is challenging, especially for open-ended tasks without reference answers. We investigate whether intrinsic confidence signals, token-level log-probabilities from decoding, can predict reasoning quality as assessed by LLM-as-judge evaluation. Using a debate-based essay scoring framework, we compare confidence proxies against rubric-based judge scores across two ASAP essay sets. We find that early-token confidence, particularly within the first few generated tokens, is consistently the strongest predictor of reasoning quality, outperforming full-sequence statistics. Analysis of log-probability trajectories shows that the opening phase of generation is the most heterogeneous and therefore most informative. We also observe a systematic asymmetry between agent roles, with stronger alignment between confidence and quality for supportive reasoning than for adversarial critique. These results suggest that early decoding dynamics provide a lightweight and effective signal for estimating reasoning reliability in multi-agent LLM systems.

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.

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.

We present MADRAG, a training-free framework for analytic essay scoring that combines multi-agent reasoning with retrieval-augmented grounding. Unlike standard LLM-as-judge approaches, which are prone to bias and unstable scoring, MADRAG decomposes evaluation into an interactive process: an Advocate identifies strengths, a Skeptic critiques weaknesses, and a Judge aggregates their arguments into a final score. Crucially, the Judge is augmented with rubric-aligned exemplar retrieval, enabling calibration through comparison with scored examples. Our results show that MADRAG significantly outperforms prompt-based baselines while approaching the performance of supervised systems without requiring task-specific training. Ablation studies demonstrate that retrieval drives calibration gains, while debate improves reasoning on higher-level traits. Our findings highlight the complementary roles of structured interaction and external memory in reliable LLM-based evaluation.

Zero-shot information extraction (IE) with large language models (LLMs) enables adaptation to new schemas and domains without task-specific training. Existing methods mainly follow three paradigms. Monolithic prompting is efficient but prone to missed mentions, boundary errors, and type confusion. Each-type prompting improves type-level focus but may produce overlapping or conflicting predictions, while multi-agent debate can resolve such conflicts at the cost of irrelevant context, redundant interactions, and high token overhead. To address these issues, we propose SMADE-IE, a sparse and evidence-driven multi-agent framework. An Adaptive Mode Selector routes simple inputs to a lightweight Global Extraction Mode and ambiguous inputs to a Type-Centric Extraction Mode based on sample complexity and relevant types. Cross-type conflicts are resolved by an Evidence-Driven Debate module that uses Toulmin-style arguments, external evidence scoring, Beta-based confidence updates, and early stopping. Experiments on nine benchmarks covering NER, RE, and JERE show that SMADE-IE improves average Partial F1 over the strongest baselines by 11.37, 3.83, and 14.46 points, respectively. Compared with the multi-agent baseline CrossAgentIE, SMADE-IE reduces token consumption by 85.1% on DocRED and 80.1% on CrossRE, demonstrating substantially higher inference efficiency. Code is available at https://github.com/Cppys/SMADE-IE.

Operational safety in high-stakes domains such as industrial process control, autonomous, and safety-critical systems, demand reliable hazard identification. While large language models (LLMs) have shown promise in automating safety analysis tasks, single-turn, monolithic inference is brittle: it lacks the self-correction, deliberation, and contextual refinement that safety engineers apply iteratively. In this paper, we introduce HAZDIAL, a framework that investigates whether structured agentic dialogue-multi-agent, multi-turn interactions improves the quality of NLP- based hazard identification over single-pass baselines. We systematically compare two dialogue modalities: adversarial debate and constructive discussion, and propose an algorithm-based agentic interaction optimization. We evaluate all configurations against a curated golden dataset using standard classification metrics (accuracy, precision, recall, F1) and novel dialogue metrics. This work advances the intersection of dialogue systems, multi-agent reasoning, and AI safety, providing an empirical evidence for dialogue-driven hazard analysis.

Debate, where AI agents argue opposing positions, has emerged as a key approach to scalable oversight. However, debate faces a fundamental tension: models are incentivized to be persuasive to the judge, which may not always align with epistemic honesty. In this work, we propose an alternative paradigm: disagreement resolution, which reframes the interaction mechanism from adversarial debate to collaborative truth seeking. Drawing on principles from human mediation and conflict resolution, where mediators facilitate dialogue to help disputing parties reach consensus rather than adjudicating between them, we design an automated pipeline that adapts these strategies to AI oversight. Unlike standard debate where models argue for fixed positions, our pipeline directs models to collaboratively identify points of disagreement, examine the evidence for conflicting claims, and converge toward consensus or isolate the specific ''crux'' of their disagreement. We find that Disagreement Resolution consistently helps non-expert models identify the truth, achieving 62.1% judging accuracy compared to 49.2% for standard debate. Our results provide encouraging empirical evidence for rethinking the scalable oversight protocol from adversarial persuasion to collaborative truth-seeking.

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.

When does multi-agent debate help data cleaning, and when does it hurt? Across three benchmarks, four model families, and over 6,000 task-condition pairs, we find debate's effect reverses sign: it degrades generation across all four models (-1.6 to -15.5pp) through critique-induced confusion (CIC), hallucinated Critic feedback that the Generator accepts uncritically, yet improves error detection (+27.4pp F1, d=1.0). We derive a debate benefit condition: debate helps when the probability of rescuing a wrong output (Critic verification odds weighted by fixability) exceeds the probability of destroying a correct one. A factorial experiment proves adversarial separation is essential: self-verification with identical tools fails, while a separate Critic with code-execution grounding and evidence-gated generation produces the first debate configuration to significantly exceed single-agent on a generative task (+5.3pp, p<0.05). The condition correctly predicts all nine task types and generalizes with zero false positives across 19 published comparisons in seven domains.

Large language model-driven multi-agent systems enhance the reliability of complex reasoning tasks through multi-round deliberation, role specialization, and cross-validation. However, existing multi-agent debate and collaboration frameworks typically adopt fully connected communication, causing the number of messages, token costs, and end-to-end latency to grow approximately quadratically with the number of agents; although fixed sparse topologies reduce overhead, they cannot adapt communication relationships to different task instances or intermediate reasoning states, making them prone either to preserving low-value interactions or to losing critical error-correction information. To address this problem, this paper proposes DySCo (Dynamic Sparse Consensus), a dynamic trust-aware sparse consensus mechanism. In each round of reasoning, DySCo estimates the value of communication edges based on agent reliability, answer divergence, and task relevance, and selects a small number of high-value edges for message exchange under budget constraints; it then aggregates the answers of different agents through dynamic trust weights and terminates the discussion early once consensus stabilizes. This mechanism replaces universal broadcasting with on-demand communication, thereby reducing communication overhead while preserving essential cross-validation information. We further present analyses of communication complexity and consensus stability, and evaluate the performance of DySCo on mathematical reasoning, logical reasoning, and factual question-answering tasks.

Inference-time multi-agent LLM scaling lacks a shared unit: counting nominal agents conflates cost with independent evidence. We derive a two-parameter scaling law $R(N) = N_\text{eff}/N = 1/(1+c(N-1)N^{-β})$ where the regime exponent $β$ classifies any configuration into one of three asymptotic regimes -- hard-ceiling at $1/c$ ($β= 0$), sublinear at $N^β/c$ ($0 < β< 1$), or linear ($β\ge 1$), and a mean-field theorem predicts that peer count $k$ and rounds $τ$ during agent debate enter the dynamics only through their product $kτ$. The law applies at two levels: answer diversity and correctness redundancy. Across 44 (model $\times$ task $\times$ condition) cells spanning peer debate, self-correction, random-noise placebo, self-consistency, three open-weight families (Qwen, Llama, Ministral) at scales from 7B to 32B with a frontier API check (Gemini), thinking models, heterogeneous teams, and sparse communication, the functional form fits every condition at $R^2 > 0.99$; only $(c, β)$ shifts. On free-form math, dense peer influence collapses the answer-level regime from sublinear into hard-ceiling; correctness-level fits remain hard-ceiling throughout. Three findings have practical implications. (i)~Thirty dense debating agents produce no more answer diversity than one on MMLU-Hard. (ii)~A noise placebo tracks self-correction on free-form math and at $4\times$ scale, so within homogeneous teams the gain commonly attributed to ``debate'' comes from re-evaluation, not peer content. (iii)~A single $N \le 5$ pilot predicts the $N=30$ structural ceiling, and within the configurations tested only architectural diversity (heterogeneous teams) lowers $c$ and escapes the hard-ceiling regime, communication-mode interventions do not.

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.

Multi-agent debate (MAD) among large language models (LLMs) is often judged by answer changes and convergence, yet these outcomes alone cannot establish that peers improved the answer. We study this gap with matched self-reflection, stance-only, and full-reasoning conditions. With five GPT-4o agents on MMLU-Pro disagreement questions, 37% of agent-question pairs change even without peer information. Among pairs stable under this control, 29.3% adopt a peer answer after seeing peer stances. These adoptions include corrections, new errors, and changes between wrong answers. The outcomes vary with correct-answer availability. When a correct peer answer is available, correction exceeds harmful adoption after accounting for peer support in the primary setting. Full reasoning improves individual accuracy but provides no additional majority-vote gain over self-reflection while using 57% more tokens. Responses to constructed peer materials vary across GPT-4o, DeepSeek-V4-Flash, and Qwen3-Plus. An answer-agnostic intervention suppresses both harmful and beneficial peer adoption without a detectable accuracy gain. Together, the results show that convergence is an ambiguous signal of value and that debate must be judged by what peer information contributes to the final group answer.

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.

Human reasoning has long been theorised to operate socially, not through isolated individual cognition, but through collective adversarial discourse, a framework known as the Argumentative Theory of Reasoning (ATR). Rather than relying on individual "intellectualist reasoners" as the primary vehicle for truth-seeking, ATR reconceptualises truth as an emergent property of social epistemology: the product of imperfect individual reasoning refined under the adversarial pressure of debate. This distributed method of collective intelligence has guided humanity to ever-greater epistemic heights and underpins the foundational principles of all democratic systems. This thesis breaks new ground by, for the first time, simulating ATR through the multi-agent debate (MAD) of large language models (LLMs). With rigorous empirical analysis, we demonstrate that, when correctly engineering an epistemically diverse set of models, LLM-MAD can significantly improve truth-seeking performance on questionnaire-based tasks, even when individual debate participants exhibit limited standalone performance. Furthermore, we present strong empirical evidence that this performance gain is mechanistically grounded in the central principles of ATR, suggesting that collective reasoning may be universally favourable over individualist reasoning, rather than a quirk in biology or evolution. Finally, drawing on our analysis of debate dynamics, we propose a novel benchmarking methodology that leverages LLM-MAD to measure intrinsic model properties (such as hallucination propensity) in order to compare models in ways that current static benchmarking approaches cannot support.

Multi-stage LLM pipelines that perform multi-agent debate, intrinsic self-correction, or retrieval-augmented verification exhibit puzzling aggregate behaviors: accuracy plateaus and reversals across rounds, non-replication of debate gains on contemporary frontier models, intrinsic self-correction degradation, and qualitative cross-provider divergence in debate dynamics. Downstream agent response can be operationalized as two coupled decisions: detection (whether to treat upstream content as authoritative) and conditional generation (what to produce if not). This decomposition yields four observable response regimes, of which detection-without-correction is the load-bearing failure mode. Across a nine-cell empirical grid spanning four model families, four benchmarks (GSM8K, MATH-500, GPQA-Diamond, AIME), and two methods (multi-agent debate, intrinsic self-correction), we find that the conditional miscorrection rate is consistently dominant (53-94% across cohorts) while detection rate varies contextually by more than an order of magnitude. The framework unifies the four phenomena above as signatures of a common mechanism and characterizes detection threshold as a stable model/protocol-level regularity that persists across methods at matched benchmark difficulty.