EMS: Multi-Agent Voting via Efficient Majority-then-Stopping

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.02863v1
• Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2026 08:29:50 GMT
• Title: EMS: Multi-Agent Voting via Efficient Majority-then-Stopping
• Abstract summary: We propose an Efficient Majority-then-Stopping (EMS) to improve reasoning efficiency.<n>EMS prioritizes agents based on task-aware reliability and terminates the reasoning pipeline the moment a majority is achieved.<n>EMS consistently reduces the average number of invoked agents by 32%.
• Score: 62.95000188335248
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Majority voting is the standard for aggregating multi-agent responses into a final decision. However, traditional methods typically require all agents to complete their reasoning before aggregation begins, leading to significant computational overhead, as many responses become redundant once a majority consensus is achieved. In this work, we formulate the multi-agent voting as a reliability-aware agent scheduling problem, and propose an Efficient Majority-then-Stopping (EMS) to improve reasoning efficiency. EMS prioritizes agents based on task-aware reliability and terminates the reasoning pipeline the moment a majority is achieved from the following three critical components. Specifically, we introduce Agent Confidence Modeling (ACM) to estimate agent reliability using historical performance and semantic similarity, Adaptive Incremental Voting (AIV) to sequentially select agents with early stopping, and Individual Confidence Updating (ICU) to dynamically update the reliability of each contributing agent. Extensive evaluations across six benchmarks demonstrate that EMS consistently reduces the average number of invoked agents by 32%.

Related papers

• Diverse Evidence, Better Forecasts: Multi-Agent Deliberation Under Information Asymmetry [1.8983854039418835]
  We show that when all agents are given identical evidence, deliberation collapses into herding rather than genuine belief revision.<n>We propose a framework combining relevance-aware evidence routing, rationale-based iterative deliberation, and confidence-weighted aggregation.<n>On PolyGym, a benchmark of 375 binary forecasting questions, InfoDelphi outperforms the strongest single-agent and multi-agent baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-02T03:41:25Z)
• Enhancing Decision-Making with Large Language Models through Multi-Agent Fictitious Play [53.56274149236814]
  Multi-Agent Fictitious Play (MAFP) is a novel MAS paradigm that represents stakeholder stances as agents.<n>MAFP iteratively updates each agent's decision by best responding to the empirical mixture of other agents' past decisions.<n>We evaluate MAFP on challenging decision-making tasks that test the capability of deciding strategies for competitive scenarios prior to acting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-17T17:31:06Z)
• Boosting Self-Consistency with Ranking [56.38798757709555]
  Self-consistency improves large language models by sampling multiple reasoning paths and selecting the most frequent answer.<n>We address this limitation with Ranking-Improved Self-Consistency (RISC), which reformulates answer selection in self-consistency as a ranking problem.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-03T16:12:30Z)
• Plan First, Judge Later, Run Better: A DMAIC-Inspired Agentic System for Industrial Anomaly Detection [51.90293101535452]
  We propose DMAIC-IAD (DMAIC-inspired Agentic Industrial Anomaly Detection), a "Plan First, Judge Later" multi-agent system.<n>We show DMAIC-IAD improves average detection performance over applicable agentic baselines by 37.76%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-03T08:38:14Z)
• Auditing Multi-Agent LLM Reasoning Trees Outperforms Majority Vote and LLM-as-Judge [18.843205691780284]
  We introduce AgentAuditor, which replaces voting with a path search over a Reasoning Tree.<n>AgentAuditor resolves conflicts by comparing reasoning branches at critical divergence points.<n>It yields up to 5% absolute accuracy improvement over a majority vote, and up to 3% over using LLM-as-Judge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-10T02:24:53Z)
• MAS-ProVe: Understanding the Process Verification of Multi-Agent Systems [59.20800753428596]
  We present MAS-ProVe, a systematic empirical study of process verification for multi-agent systems (MAS)<n>Our study spans three verification paradigms (LLM-as-a-Judge, reward models, and process reward models)<n>We find that process-level verification does not consistently improve performance and frequently exhibits high variance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-03T03:30:36Z)
• Collaborative Multi-Agent Test-Time Reinforcement Learning for Reasoning [112.16686518063456]
  We introduce textbfMulti-Agent Test-Time Reinforcement Learning (MATTRL), a framework that injects structured textual experience into multi-agent deliberation at inference time.<n>MATTRL forms a multi-expert team of specialists for multi-turn discussions, retrieves and integrates test-time experiences, and reaches consensus for final decision-making.<n>Across challenging benchmarks in medicine, math, and education, MATTRL improves accuracy by an average of 3.67% over a multi-agent baseline, and by 8.67% over comparable single-agent baselines
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-14T17:57:43Z)
• AgentPRM: Process Reward Models for LLM Agents via Step-Wise Promise and Progress [71.02263260394261]
  Large language models (LLMs) still encounter challenges in multi-turn decision-making tasks.<n>We build process reward models (PRMs) to evaluate each decision and guide the agent's decision-making process.<n>AgentPRM captures both the interdependence between sequential decisions and their contribution to the final goal.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-11T14:57:54Z)
• Internalizing Self-Consistency in Language Models: Multi-Agent Consensus Alignment [22.305033366660187]
  Language Models (LMs) are inconsistent reasoners, often generating contradictory responses to identical prompts.<n>We formalize self-consistency as an intrinsic property of well-aligned reasoning models and introduce Multi-Agent Consensus Alignment (MACA)<n>MACA enables agents to teach themselves to be more decisive and concise, and better leverage peer insights in multi-agent settings without external supervision.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-18T17:27:28Z)
• Byzantine-Robust Decentralized Coordination of LLM Agents [4.097563258332958]
  We propose DecentLLMs, a novel decentralized consensus approach for multi-agent LLM systems.<n>Agents generate answers concurrently and evaluator agents independently score and rank these answers to select the best available one.<n> Experimental results demonstrate that DecentLLMs effectively tolerates Byzantine agents and significantly improves the quality of selected answers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-20T11:55:26Z)
• An Adversary-Resistant Multi-Agent LLM System via Credibility Scoring [8.779871128906787]
  We introduce a general and adversary-resistant multi-agent LLM framework based on credibility scoring.<n>Our system associates a credibility score that is used when aggregating the team outputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-30T05:57:37Z)
• AgentBoard: An Analytical Evaluation Board of Multi-turn LLM Agents [74.16170899755281]
  We introduce AgentBoard, a pioneering comprehensive benchmark and accompanied open-source evaluation framework tailored to analytical evaluation of LLM agents.<n>AgentBoard offers a fine-grained progress rate metric that captures incremental advancements as well as a comprehensive evaluation toolkit.<n>This not only sheds light on the capabilities and limitations of LLM agents but also propels the interpretability of their performance to the forefront.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-24T01:51:00Z)

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.