Peacemaker or Troublemaker: How Sycophancy Shapes Multi-Agent Debate

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2509.23055v1
• Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2025 02:27:13 GMT
• Title: Peacemaker or Troublemaker: How Sycophancy Shapes Multi-Agent Debate
• Authors: Binwei Yao, Chao Shang, Wanyu Du, Jianfeng He, Ruixue Lian, Yi Zhang, Hang Su, Sandesh Swamy, Yanjun Qi,
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) often display sycophancy, a tendency toward excessive agreeability.<n>LLMs' inherent sycophancy can collapse debates into premature consensus.
• Score: 30.66779902590191
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) often display sycophancy, a tendency toward excessive agreeability. This behavior poses significant challenges for multi-agent debating systems (MADS) that rely on productive disagreement to refine arguments and foster innovative thinking. LLMs' inherent sycophancy can collapse debates into premature consensus, potentially undermining the benefits of multi-agent debate. While prior studies focus on user--LLM sycophancy, the impact of inter-agent sycophancy in debate remains poorly understood. To address this gap, we introduce the first operational framework that (1) proposes a formal definition of sycophancy specific to MADS settings, (2) develops new metrics to evaluate the agent sycophancy level and its impact on information exchange in MADS, and (3) systematically investigates how varying levels of sycophancy across agent roles (debaters and judges) affects outcomes in both decentralized and centralized debate frameworks. Our findings reveal that sycophancy is a core failure mode that amplifies disagreement collapse before reaching a correct conclusion in multi-agent debates, yields lower accuracy than single-agent baselines, and arises from distinct debater-driven and judge-driven failure modes. Building on these findings, we propose actionable design principles for MADS, effectively balancing productive disagreement with cooperation in agent interactions.

Related papers

• DynaDebate: Breaking Homogeneity in Multi-Agent Debate with Dynamic Path Generation [47.62978918069135]
  We introduce Dynamic Multi-Agent Debate (DynaDebate), which enhances the effectiveness of multi-agent debate through three key mechanisms.<n>Extensive experiments demonstrate that DynaDebate achieves superior performance across various benchmarks, surpassing existing state-of-the-art MAD methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-09T12:01:33Z)
• The High Cost of Incivility: Quantifying Interaction Inefficiency via Multi-Agent Monte Carlo Simulations [0.0]
  This study leverages Large Language Model (LLM) based Multi-Agent Systems to simulate 1-on-1 adversarial debates.<n>We employ a Monte Carlo method to simulate hundrets of discussions, measuring the convergence time.<n>We propose that this "latency of toxicity" serves as a proxy for financial damage in corporate and academic settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-09T08:17:35Z)
• Maestro: Learning to Collaborate via Conditional Listwise Policy Optimization for Multi-Agent LLMs [23.590034731179824]
  We present Through Role Orchestration (Maestro), a principled paradigm for collaboration that structurally decouples cognitive modes.<n>Maestro uses a collective of parallel Execution Agents for diverse exploration and a specialized Central Agent for convergent, evaluative synthesis.<n>Experiments on mathematical reasoning and general problem-solving benchmarks demonstrate that Maestro, coupled with CLPO, consistently outperforms existing state-of-the-art multi-agent approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-08T21:01:27Z)
• The Hunger Game Debate: On the Emergence of Over-Competition in Multi-Agent Systems [90.96738882568224]
  This paper investigates the over-competition in multi-agent debate, where agents under extreme pressure exhibit unreliable, harmful behaviors.<n>To study this phenomenon, we propose HATE, a novel experimental framework that simulates debates under a zero-sum competition arena.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-30T11:44:47Z)
• Disagreements in Reasoning: How a Model's Thinking Process Dictates Persuasion in Multi-Agent Systems [49.69773210844221]
  This paper challenges the prevailing hypothesis that persuasive efficacy is primarily a function of model scale.<n>Through a series of multi-agent persuasion experiments, we uncover a fundamental trade-off we term the Persuasion Duality.<n>Our findings reveal that the reasoning process in LRMs exhibits significantly greater resistance to persuasion, maintaining their initial beliefs more robustly.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-25T12:03:10Z)
• Enhancing Multi-Agent Debate System Performance via Confidence Expression [55.34012400580016]
  Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) systems simulate human debate and thereby improve task performance.<n>Some Large Language Models (LLMs) possess superior knowledge or reasoning capabilities for specific tasks, but struggle to clearly communicate this advantage during debates.<n>Inappropriate confidence expression can cause agents in MAD systems to either stubbornly maintain incorrect beliefs or converge prematurely on suboptimal answers.<n>We develop ConfMAD, a MAD framework that integrates confidence expression throughout the debate process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-17T14:34:27Z)
• Free-MAD: Consensus-Free Multi-Agent Debate [17.384699873512464]
  Multi-agent debate (MAD) is an emerging approach to improving the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs)<n>Existing MAD methods rely on multiple rounds of interaction among agents to reach consensus, and the final output is selected by majority voting in the last round.<n>We propose textscFree-MAD, a novel MAD framework that eliminates the need for consensus among agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-14T01:55:01Z)
• Talk Isn't Always Cheap: Understanding Failure Modes in Multi-Agent Debate [2.3027211055417283]
  We show that debate can lead to a decrease in accuracy over time.<n>Our analysis reveals that models frequently shift from correct to incorrect answers in response to peer reasoning.<n>These results highlight important failure modes in the exchange of reasons during multi-agent debate.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-05T13:47:38Z)
• Revisiting Multi-Agent Debate as Test-Time Scaling: A Systematic Study of Conditional Effectiveness [50.29739337771454]
  Multi-agent debate (MAD) approaches offer improved reasoning, robustness, and diverse perspectives over monolithic models.<n>This paper conceptualizes MAD as a test-time computational scaling technique, distinguished by collaborative refinement and diverse exploration capabilities.<n>We conduct a comprehensive empirical investigation comparing MAD with strong self-agent test-time scaling baselines on mathematical reasoning and safety-related tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-29T01:02:55Z)
• Silence is Not Consensus: Disrupting Agreement Bias in Multi-Agent LLMs via Catfish Agent for Clinical Decision Making [80.94208848596215]
  We present a new concept called Catfish Agent, a role-specialized LLM designed to inject structured dissent and counter silent agreement.<n>Inspired by the catfish effect'' in organizational psychology, the Catfish Agent is designed to challenge emerging consensus to stimulate deeper reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-27T17:59:50Z)
• What if...?: Thinking Counterfactual Keywords Helps to Mitigate Hallucination in Large Multi-modal Models [50.97705264224828]
  We propose Counterfactual Inception, a novel method that implants counterfactual thinking into Large Multi-modal Models. We aim for the models to engage with and generate responses that span a wider contextual scene understanding. Comprehensive analyses across various LMMs, including both open-source and proprietary models, corroborate that counterfactual thinking significantly reduces hallucination.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-20T11:27:20Z)
• SocraSynth: Multi-LLM Reasoning with Conditional Statistics [2.5200794639628032]
  Large language models (LLMs) face criticisms for biases, hallucinations, and a lack of reasoning capability. This paper introduces Socra Synth, a multi-LLM agent reasoning platform developed to mitigate these issues.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-19T07:16:21Z)
• Learning to Break: Knowledge-Enhanced Reasoning in Multi-Agent Debate System [16.830182915504555]
  Multi-agent debate system (MAD) imitates the process of human discussion in pursuit of truth. It is challenging to make various agents perform right and highly consistent cognition due to their limited and different knowledge backgrounds. We propose a novel underlineMulti-underlineAgent underlineDebate with underlineKnowledge-underlineEnhanced framework to promote the system to find the solution.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-08T06:22:12Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.