DynaDebate: Breaking Homogeneity in Multi-Agent Debate with Dynamic Path Generation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.05746v1
• Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2026 12:01:33 GMT
• Title: DynaDebate: Breaking Homogeneity in Multi-Agent Debate with Dynamic Path Generation
• Authors: Zhenghao Li, Zhi Zheng, Wei Chen, Jielun Zhao, Yong Chen, Tong Xu, Enhong Chen,
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 47.62978918069135
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Recent years have witnessed the rapid development of Large Language Model-based Multi-Agent Systems (MAS), which excel at collaborative decision-making and complex problem-solving. Recently, researchers have further investigated Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) frameworks, which enhance the reasoning and collaboration capabilities of MAS through information exchange and debate among multiple agents. However, existing approaches often rely on unguided initialization, causing agents to adopt identical reasoning paths that lead to the same errors. As a result, effective debate among agents is hindered, and the final outcome frequently degenerates into simple majority voting. To solve the above problem, in this paper, we introduce Dynamic Multi-Agent Debate (DynaDebate), which enhances the effectiveness of multi-agent debate through three key mechanisms: (1) Dynamic Path Generation and Allocation, which employs a dedicated Path Generation Agent to generate diverse and logical solution paths with adaptive redundancy; (2) Process-Centric Debate, which shifts the focus from surface-level outcome voting to rigorous step-by-step logic critique to ensure process correctness; (3) A Trigger-Based Verification Agent, which is activated upon disagreement and uses external tools to objectively resolve deadlocks. Extensive experiments demonstrate that DynaDebate achieves superior performance across various benchmarks, surpassing existing state-of-the-art MAD methods.

Related papers

• AgentArk: Distilling Multi-Agent Intelligence into a Single LLM Agent [57.10083973844841]
  AgentArk is a novel framework to distill multi-agent dynamics into the weights of a single model.<n>We investigate three hierarchical distillation strategies across various models, tasks, scaling, and scenarios.<n>By shifting the burden of computation from inference to training, the distilled models preserve the efficiency of one agent while exhibiting strong reasoning and self-correction performance of multiple agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-03T19:18:28Z)
• OPTAGENT: Optimizing Multi-Agent LLM Interactions Through Verbal Reinforcement Learning for Enhanced Reasoning [14.105640933123325]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown remarkable reasoning capabilities in mathematical and scientific tasks.<n>To enhance complex reasoning, multi-agent systems have been proposed to harness the collective intelligence of LLM agents.<n>We propose $ours$, a multi-agent verbal reinforcement learning algorithm that dynamically constructs and refines multi-agent collaboration structures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-20T19:07:51Z)
• MADIAVE: Multi-Agent Debate for Implicit Attribute Value Extraction [52.89860691282002]
  Implicit Attribute Value Extraction (AVE) is essential for accurately representing products in e-commerce.<n>Despite advances in multimodal large language models (MLLMs), implicit AVE remains challenging due to the complexity of multidimensional data.<n>We introduce textscmodelname, a multi-agent debate framework that employs multiple MLLM agents to iteratively refine inferences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-07T06:27:42Z)
• Peacemaker or Troublemaker: How Sycophancy Shapes Multi-Agent Debate [30.66779902590191]
  Large language models (LLMs) often display sycophancy, a tendency toward excessive agreeability.<n>LLMs' inherent sycophancy can collapse debates into premature consensus.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-27T02:27:13Z)
• 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)
• Is Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) the Silver Bullet? An Empirical Analysis of MAD in Code Summarization and Translation [10.038721196640864]
  Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) systems enable structured debates among Large Language Models (LLMs)<n> MAD promotes divergent thinking through role-specific agents, dynamic interactions, and structured decision-making.<n>This study investigates MAD's effectiveness on two Software Engineering (SE) tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-15T07:30:37Z)
• When Disagreements Elicit Robustness: Investigating Self-Repair Capabilities under LLM Multi-Agent Disagreements [56.29265568399648]
  We argue that disagreements prevent premature consensus and expand the explored solution space.<n>Disagreements on task-critical steps can derail collaboration depending on the topology of solution paths.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-21T02:24:43Z)
• Multi-Agent Large Language Models for Conversational Task-Solving [0.0]
  Multi-agent systems arise as new protagonists in conversational task-solving. It remains unascertained how multi-agent discussions perform across tasks of varying complexity. I propose a taxonomy of 20 multi-agent research studies from 2022 to 2024.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-30T11:38:13Z)
• Textualized Agent-Style Reasoning for Complex Tasks by Multiple Round LLM Generation [49.27250832754313]
  We present AgentCOT, a llm-based autonomous agent framework. At each step, AgentCOT selects an action and executes it to yield an intermediate result with supporting evidence. We introduce two new strategies to enhance the performance of AgentCOT.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-19T02:20:06Z)
• 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.