Breaking the Martingale Curse: Multi-Agent Debate via Asymmetric Cognitive Potential Energy

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.06801v1
• Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2026 19:10:19 GMT
• Title: Breaking the Martingale Curse: Multi-Agent Debate via Asymmetric Cognitive Potential Energy
• Abstract summary: Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) has emerged as a promising paradigm for enhancing large language model reasoning.<n>We propose AceMAD, a framework that breaks the Martingale Curse by harnessing asymmetric cognitive potential energy.
• Score: 42.25453328861205
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) has emerged as a promising paradigm for enhancing large language model reasoning. However, recent work reveals a limitation:standard MAD cannot improve belief correctness beyond majority voting; we refer to this as the Martingale Curse. This curse arises because correlated errors cause agents to converge toward erroneous consensus, where debate merely reinforces collective mistakes rather than filtering noise. We propose AceMAD, a framework that breaks the Martingale Curse by harnessing asymmetric cognitive potential energy to transform MAD from a random walk into a directed convergence process with positive drift. Through a peer-prediction mechanism, agents predict their peers' belief distributions, revealing asymmetric cognitive potential: truth-holders not only know the correct answer but also anticipate the crowd's misconceptions, while the hallucinating majority remains blind to their collective error. This asymmetry creates a potential energy gap that we quantify via strictly proper scoring rules. We prove this cognitive potential manifests as information-theoretic superiority and, under nonlinear aggregation, converts into submartingale drift toward truth, directly breaking the Martingale Curse. Experiments on challenging subsets across six benchmarks show AceMAD recovers sparse truth signals even when initial majorities are incorrect, substantially outperforming baseline methods.

Related papers

• Balancing Faithfulness and Performance in Reasoning via Multi-Listener Soft Execution [79.98699884805636]
  Reasoning Execution by Multiple Listeners (REMUL) is a multi-party reinforcement learning approach.<n>REMUL builds on the hypothesis that reasoning traces which other parties can follow will be more faithful.<n>Speakers are rewarded for producing reasoning that is clear to listeners.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-18T02:55:55Z)
• The Energy of Falsehood: Detecting Hallucinations via Diffusion Model Likelihoods [0.9877005520976847]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) frequently hallucinate plausible but incorrect assertions.<n>We propose DiffuTruth, an unsupervised framework that reconceptualizes fact verification via non equilibrium thermodynamics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-11T20:52:16Z)
• Martingale Score: An Unsupervised Metric for Bayesian Rationality in LLM Reasoning [26.42437186150084]
  We propose a systematic evaluation framework for belief entrenchment in large language models.<n>We use the Martingale property from Bayesian statistics to measure violations of this property.<n>We identify the models, reasoning techniques, and domains more prone to belief entrenchment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-02T16:34:05Z)
• Towards Scalable Oversight with Collaborative Multi-Agent Debate in Error Detection [81.52796950244705]
  Self-diagnosis is unreliable on complex tasks unless aided by reliable external feedback.<n>We introduce a new collaborative MAD protocol, termed ColMAD, that reframes MAD as a non-zero sum game.<n>We show that ColMAD significantly outperforms previous competitive MAD by 19%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-23T19:46:00Z)
• 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)
• Debate or Vote: Which Yields Better Decisions in Multi-Agent Large Language Models? [13.569822165805851]
  Multi-Agent Debate(MAD) has emerged as a promising paradigm for improving the performance of large language models.<n>Despite recent advances, the key factors driving MAD's effectiveness remain unclear.<n>We disentangle MAD into two key components--Majority Voting and inter-agent Debate--and assess their respective contributions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-24T22:14:32Z)
• Semantic Energy: Detecting LLM Hallucination Beyond Entropy [106.92072182161712]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are being increasingly deployed in real-world applications, but they remain susceptible to hallucinations.<n>Uncertainty estimation is a feasible approach to detect such hallucinations.<n>We introduce Semantic Energy, a novel uncertainty estimation framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-20T07:33:50Z)
• DebUnc: Improving Large Language Model Agent Communication With Uncertainty Metrics [52.242449026151846]
  Multi-agent debates have been introduced to improve the accuracy of Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>We propose DebUnc, a debate framework that uses uncertainty metrics to assess agent confidence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-08T22:15:01Z)
• Monotonicity and Double Descent in Uncertainty Estimation with Gaussian Processes [52.92110730286403]
  It is commonly believed that the marginal likelihood should be reminiscent of cross-validation metrics and that both should deteriorate with larger input dimensions. We prove that by tuning hyper parameters, the performance, as measured by the marginal likelihood, improves monotonically with the input dimension. We also prove that cross-validation metrics exhibit qualitatively different behavior that is characteristic of double descent.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-14T08:09:33Z)

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.