The Cost of Consensus: Isolated Self-Correction Prevails Over Unguided Homogeneous Multi-Agent Debate

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.00914v1
• Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2026 14:33:57 GMT
• Title: The Cost of Consensus: Isolated Self-Correction Prevails Over Unguided Homogeneous Multi-Agent Debate
• Abstract summary: We study teams of homogeneous agents across $R=3$ debate rounds on two high-difficulty benchmarks.<n>We decompose debate failure into three model-dependent pathways: sycophantic conformity, peer rationales, and consensus collapse.<n>Our results indicate that, within the 7-8B parameter class, homogeneous teams without structured roles do not benefit from unguided peer exchange.
• Score: 5.51170856062205
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Multi-agent debate, where teams of LLMs iteratively exchange rationales and vote on answers, is widely deployed under the assumption that peer review filters hallucinations. Yet the failure dynamics of homogeneous debate remain poorly understood, therefore we report findings from a controlled empirical study of teams of $N{=}10$ homogeneous agents (Qwen2.5-7B, Llama-3.1-8B, Ministral-3-8B) across $R{=}3$ debate rounds on two high-difficulty benchmarks (GSM-Hard and MMLU-Hard). We compare peer debate against isolated self-correction and a stochastic noise control that injects rationales from unrelated problems. We decompose debate failure into three model-dependent pathways: sycophantic conformity, where agents uncritically adopt majority answers (modal adoption up to 85.5%); contextual fragility, where peer rationales destabilize previously correct reasoning (vulnerability rate up to 70.0%); and consensus collapse, where plurality voting discards correct answers already present in the generation pool (oracle gap up to 32.3 percentage points). Ablations over communication density ($K \in \{2,4,9\}$) and sampling temperature ($T \in \{0.4, 0.7\}$) show that conformity reaches high levels at minimal peer exposure ($K{=}2$) and intensifies with greater initial diversity. Across all configurations, debate consumes 2.1-3.4$\times$ more tokens (up to 28,631 tokens per problem) than self-correction for equal or lower accuracy. Our results indicate that, within the 7-8B parameter class, homogeneous teams without structured roles do not benefit from unguided peer exchange, and that isolated self-correction consistently offers a more favorable cost-accuracy tradeoff.

Related papers

• Not All Flips Are Conformity: Decomposing Stance Convergence in Multi-Agent LLM Debate [5.650336594658653]
  We show that a conventional answer flip rate conflates three mechanisms: spontaneous instability, stance-induced conformity, and reasoning-induced persuasion.<n>Our three-source decomposition framework isolates each through controlled counterfactual conditions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-30T17:41:11Z)
• LC-ERD: Mining Latent Logic for Self-Evolving Reasoning via Consistency-Regulated Reward Decomposition [55.572260012037084]
  We introduce LC-ERD (Logic-Consistent Endogenous Reward Decomposition), a framework framing self-alignment as latent structure mining.<n>We derive a Variational Logic Potential by aggregating consensus from the model's Latent Logic Expertise.<n>Experiments show LC-ERD delivers a robust self-evolution path, uncovering trade-offs between logic consistency and accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-19T07:27:50Z)
• Statistical Scouting Finds Debate-Safe but Not Debate-Useful Cases: A Matched-Ceiling Study of Open-Weight LLM Reasoning Protocols [0.0]
  We evaluate greedy decoding, three-sample voting, and a two-agent critique-revise debate on MuSiQue and GSM8K.<n>On MuSiQue, an oracle selecting the correct protocol per example gains +14.0 and +13.7 pp over the best fixed one.<n>A vote-entropy threshold is the only controller that directionally beats the best fixed protocol on both models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-10T15:56:37Z)
• Preserving Disagreement: Architectural Heterogeneity and Coherence Validation in Multi-Agent Policy Simulation [0.0]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-29T11:47:28Z)
• From Debate to Decision: Conformal Social Choice for Safe Multi-Agent Deliberation [12.294365308421606]
  We introduce Conformal Social Choice, a post-hoc decision layer that converts debate outputs into calibrated act-versus-escalate decisions.<n>A hierarchical action policy maps singleton sets to autonomous action and larger sets to human escalation.<n>Because the layer refuses to act on cases where debate is confidently wrong, the remaining conformal singletons reach 90.0--96.8% accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-09T00:15:20Z)
• Representational Collapse in Multi-Agent LLM Committees: Measurement and Diversity-Aware Consensus [0.0]
  Multi-agent LLM committees replicate the same model under different role prompts and aggregate outputs by majority vote.<n>We embed each agent's chain-of-thought rationale and measure pairwise similarity across 100 GSM8K questions with three Qwen2.5-14B agents.<n>DALC, a training-free consensus protocol that computes diversity weights from embedding geometry, reaches 87% on GSM8K versus 84% for self-consistency at 26% lower token cost.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-04T17:30:23Z)
• Heterogeneous Consensus-Progressive Reasoning for Efficient Multi-Agent Debate [58.675713546748305]
  Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) is a collaborative framework in which multiple agents iteratively refine solutions through the generation of reasoning and alternating critique cycles.<n>This work introduces Heterogeneous Consensus-Progressive Reasoning for Efficient Multi-Agent Debate (HCP-MAD)<n>HCP-MAD employs a three-stage progressive reasoning mechanism to develop adaptive solutions across varying task complexities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-03T06:58:59Z)
• The Price Reversal Phenomenon: When Cheaper Reasoning Models End Up Costing More [76.93600828673503]
  Listed API pricing is an unreliable proxy for actual cost.<n>Removing thinking token costs reduces ranking reversals by 70%.<n>Our findings call for cost-aware model selection and transparent per-request cost monitoring.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-25T06:07:39Z)
• Reinforcement Learning from Multi-Source Imperfect Preferences: Best-of-Both-Regimes Regret [71.69884486156359]
  We study episodic RL from emphmulti-source imperfect preferences through a cumulative imperfection budget.<n>We propose a unified algorithm with regret $tildeO(sqrtK/M+)$, which exhibits a best-of-both-regimes behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-20T19:34:53Z)
• Information Fidelity in Tool-Using LLM Agents: A Martingale Analysis of the Model Context Protocol [69.11739400975445]
  We introduce the first theoretical framework for analyzing error accumulation in Model Context Protocol (MCP) agents.<n>We show that cumulative distortion exhibits linear growth and high-probability deviations bounded by $O(sqrtT)$.<n>Key findings include: semantic weighting reduces distortion by 80%, and periodic re-grounding approximately every 9 steps suffices for error control.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-10T21:08:53Z)
• Eigen-1: Adaptive Multi-Agent Refinement with Monitor-Based RAG for Scientific Reasoning [53.45095336430027]
  We develop a unified framework that combines implicit retrieval and structured collaboration.<n>On Humanity's Last Exam (HLE) Bio/Chem Gold, our framework achieves 48.3% accuracy.<n>Results on SuperGPQA and TRQA confirm robustness across domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-25T14:05:55Z)
• 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)
• Co-rewarding: Stable Self-supervised RL for Eliciting Reasoning in Large Language Models [56.055015597319674]
  Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) is effective to improve the reasoning ability of large language models (LLMs)<n>Recent self-rewarding methods investigate a label-free alternative to unlock the reasoning capabilities of LLMs.<n>We propose textitCo-rewarding, a novel self-supervised RL framework that improves training stability by seeking complementary supervision from another views.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-01T08:09:14Z)

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.