Preserving Disagreement: Architectural Heterogeneity and Coherence Validation in Multi-Agent Policy Simulation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.26561v1
• Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2026 11:47:28 GMT
• Title: Preserving Disagreement: Architectural Heterogeneity and Coherence Validation in Multi-Agent Policy Simulation
• Abstract summary: Multi-agent deliberation systems using large language models (LLMs) are increasingly proposed for policy simulation.<n>They suffer from artificial consensus: evaluator agents converge on the same option regardless of their assigned value perspectives.<n>We present the AI Council, a three-phase deliberation framework, and conduct 120 deliberations across two policy scenarios to test two interventions.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Multi-agent deliberation systems using large language models (LLMs) are increasingly proposed for policy simulation, yet they suffer from artificial consensus: evaluator agents converge on the same option regardless of their assigned value perspectives. We present the AI Council, a three-phase deliberation framework, and conduct 120 deliberations across two policy scenarios to test two interventions. First, architectural heterogeneity (assigning a different 7-9B parameter model to each value perspective) significantly reduces first-choice concentration compared to a homogeneous baseline (child welfare: 70.9% to 46.1%, p < 0.001, r = 0.58; housing: 46.0% to 22.9%, p < 0.001, r = 0.50). This contrasts with accuracy-oriented multi-agent debate, where heterogeneity does not reduce convergence, suggesting model diversity operates differently when no objectively correct answer exists. Second, coherence validation (using a frontier model to assess whether each evaluator's reasoning is grounded in its assigned values) reveals a fidelity-diversity tradeoff: on a scenario with a dominant option, it further reduces concentration (46.1% to 40.8%, p = 0.004), but on a scenario with genuinely competitive options, it increases concentration (22.9% to 26.6%, p = 0.96) by amplifying high-coherence evaluators who cluster on one option. This tradeoff may be a general property of multi-agent systems employing quality weighting. We report negative results from three failed Delphi designs, demonstrate that 8B models exhibit binary rather than graded responses to counter-arguments, and propose the trustworthy tension rate as a diagnostic measure of small-model deliberation capabilities.

Related papers

• Marginal Fidelity Does Not Establish User Simulation in Demographic Synthetic Survey Panels: Response Contracts, Support Collapse and Conditioning Failure [51.736723807086385]
  Population-marginal agreement is evidence about an elicitation contract and an estimand obtainable without simulated respondents, not evidence of individual simulation.<n>On nine aligned model-battery pairs, a no-persona population-prevalence query averages 6.27 MAE versus 12.39 for committed panels and wins all nine comparisons.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-07T10:22:22Z)
• CUSP: Decomposable Collective Uncertainty for Multi-Agent Multimodal Reasoning [6.428392127849263]
  We present CUSP, a training-free uncertainty framework that maps multiple VLM responses to a shared semantic response space.<n>We report two complementary system-level signals: collective uncertainty, the dispersion of the pooled opinion, and Jensen-Shannon divergence (JSD)<n>In static multi-VLM ensembles, collective uncertainty is the strongest signal in the small-model regime.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-04T20:27:47Z)
• Does Splitting a Triage Decision Across Agents Hide Bias or Help Catch It? A Multi-Agent Simulation Study of LLM-Based Resource Allocation Under Audit Capacity Constraints [0.0]
  We study what happens to bias when the same decision is distributed across a role-differentiated multi-agent pipeline.<n>We find no measurable difference in how often biased outcomes occur between the two conditions.<n>We do find a large and significant effect of audit capacity on whether bias is caught.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-07T08:25:53Z)
• Knowledge Index of Noah's Ark [63.143852586221534]
  We introduce KINA, an 899-item benchmark across 261 fine-grained disciplines.<n>We prove a bonus-on-bar tournament weakly FOSD-dominates flat payment in released-review quality.<n>The top model, Gemini-3.1-Pro-Preview, reaches 53.17%, followed by Claude-Opus-4.6 at 49.92% and GPT-5.4 at 48.55%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-03T17:06:49Z)
• Design and Evaluation of Multi-Agent AI Oracle Systems for Prediction Market Resolution [0.0]
  Prediction markets aggregate collective intelligence to forecast uncertain events.<n>Existing oracle systems tradeoff fast but brittle automation against accurate but costly human arbitration.<n>We evaluate whether multi-agent LLM architectures can improve oracle resolution accuracy over single-model baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-29T03:44:19Z)
• Visual Aesthetic Benchmark: Can Frontier Models Judge Beauty? [59.923111838399144]
  We introduce the Visual Aesthetic Benchmark (VAB), which casts aesthetic evaluation as comparative selection over candidate sets with matched subject matter.<n>VAB contains 400 tasks and 1,195 images across fine art, photography, and illustration, with labels derived from the consensus of 10 independent expert judges per task.<n>We find that the strongest system identifies both the best and the worst image correctly across three random permutations of the candidate order in only 26.5% of tasks, far below the 68.9% achieved by human experts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-12T19:33:28Z)
• Taming Actor-Observer Asymmetry in Agents via Dialectical Alignment [59.536125286960186]
  Multi-agent frameworks assigning specialized roles are increasingly adopted to enable self-reflection and mutual auditing.<n>We find it simultaneously induces a human-like cognitive bias known as Actor-Observer Asymmetry.<n>ReTAS guides agents to synthesize conflicting viewpoints into an objective consensus.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-21T15:05:58Z)
• OccuBench: Evaluating AI Agents on Real-World Professional Tasks via Language Environment Simulation [57.505743202759646]
  OccuBench is a benchmark covering 100 real-world professional task scenarios across 10 industry categories and 65 specialized domains.<n>Our multi-agent synthesis pipeline automatically produces evaluation instances with guaranteed solvability, calibrated difficulty, and document-grounded diversity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-13T00:27:32Z)
• Claw-Eval: Toward Trustworthy Evaluation of Autonomous Agents [66.97968363332465]
  We introduce Claw-Eval, an end-to-end evaluation suite addressing all three gaps in agent benchmarks.<n>Claw-Eval comprises 300 human-verified tasks spanning 9 categories across three groups.<n>Every agent action is recorded through three independent evidence channels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-07T17:43:18Z)
• Semantic Invariance in Agentic AI [2.7821684674538347]
  Large Language Models increasingly serve as autonomous reasoning agents in decision support, scientific problem-solving, and multi-agent coordination systems.<n> deploying LLM agents in consequential applications requires assurance that their reasoning remains stable under semantically equivalent input variations.<n>Standard benchmark evaluations, which assess accuracy on fixed, canonical problem formulations, fail to capture this critical reliability dimension.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-13T17:08:44Z)
• Towards a Science of Scaling Agent Systems [79.64446272302287]
  We formalize a definition for agent evaluation and characterize scaling laws as the interplay between agent quantity, coordination structure, modelic, and task properties.<n>We derive a predictive model using coordination metrics, that cross-validated R2=0, enabling prediction on unseen task domains.<n>We identify three effects: (1) a tool-coordination trade-off: under fixed computational budgets, tool-heavy tasks suffer disproportionately from multi-agent overhead, and (2) a capability saturation: coordination yields diminishing or negative returns once single-agent baselines exceed 45%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-09T06:52:21Z)
• Beyond Mimicry: Preference Coherence in LLMs [0.19116784879310025]
  We investigate whether large language models exhibit genuine preference structures by testing their responses to AI-specific trade-offs.<n>We find 23 combinations (47.9%) demonstrated statistically significant relationships between scenario intensity and choice patterns.<n>Only 5 combinations (10.4%) demonstrate meaningful preference coherence through adaptive or threshold-based behavior.<n>The prevalence of unstable transitions (45.8%) and stimulus-specific sensitivities suggests current AI systems lack unified preference structures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-17T17:41:48Z)
• 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)
• A Twin Neural Model for Uplift [59.38563723706796]
  Uplift is a particular case of conditional treatment effect modeling. We propose a new loss function defined by leveraging a connection with the Bayesian interpretation of the relative risk. We show our proposed method is competitive with the state-of-the-art in simulation setting and on real data from large scale randomized experiments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-11T16:02:39Z)

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.