Social Reasoning in Machines: Investigating Collective Truth-Seeking Dynamics in Large Language Model Debate

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.30391v1
• Date: Thu, 28 May 2026 12:07:03 GMT
• Title: Social Reasoning in Machines: Investigating Collective Truth-Seeking Dynamics in Large Language Model Debate
• Abstract summary: This thesis breaks new ground by simulating multi-agent debate (MAD) of large language models (LLMs)<n>We show that, when correctly engineering an diverse set of models, LLM-MAD can significantly improve truth-seeking performance on questionnaire-based tasks.<n>We present strong empirical evidence that this gain is mechanistically grounded in the central principles of the Theory of Reasoning.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Human reasoning has long been theorised to operate socially, not through isolated individual cognition, but through collective adversarial discourse, a framework known as the Argumentative Theory of Reasoning (ATR). Rather than relying on individual "intellectualist reasoners" as the primary vehicle for truth-seeking, ATR reconceptualises truth as an emergent property of social epistemology: the product of imperfect individual reasoning refined under the adversarial pressure of debate. This distributed method of collective intelligence has guided humanity to ever-greater epistemic heights and underpins the foundational principles of all democratic systems. This thesis breaks new ground by, for the first time, simulating ATR through the multi-agent debate (MAD) of large language models (LLMs). With rigorous empirical analysis, we demonstrate that, when correctly engineering an epistemically diverse set of models, LLM-MAD can significantly improve truth-seeking performance on questionnaire-based tasks, even when individual debate participants exhibit limited standalone performance. Furthermore, we present strong empirical evidence that this performance gain is mechanistically grounded in the central principles of ATR, suggesting that collective reasoning may be universally favourable over individualist reasoning, rather than a quirk in biology or evolution. Finally, drawing on our analysis of debate dynamics, we propose a novel benchmarking methodology that leverages LLM-MAD to measure intrinsic model properties (such as hallucination propensity) in order to compare models in ways that current static benchmarking approaches cannot support.

Related papers

• Multimodal Fact-Level Attribution for Verifiable Reasoning [80.60864342985748]
  Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) are increasingly used for real-world tasks involving multi-step reasoning and long-form generation.<n>Existing multimodal grounding benchmarks and evaluation methods fail to assess attribution in complex multimodal reasoning.<n>We introduce MuRGAt, a benchmark for evaluating fact-level multimodal attribution in settings that require reasoning beyond direct observation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-12T03:10:02Z)
• Prepare Reasoning Language Models for Multi-Agent Debate with Self-Debate Reinforcement Learning [49.99694105650486]
  Self-Debate Reinforcement Learning (SDRL) is a training framework that equips a single large language model with strong problem-solving ability.<n>We show that SDRL improves overall Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) performance while simultaneously strengthening single model reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-29T20:21:44Z)
• Latent Debate: A Surrogate Framework for Interpreting LLM Thinking [26.20998021856433]
  We introduce latent debate, a novel framework for interpreting model predictions through the lens of implicit internal arguments.<n>We show that latent debate is a faithful structured surrogate model that has highly consistent predictions with the original LLM.<n>Further analysis reveals strong correlations between hallucinations and debate patterns, such as a high degree of latent debates in the middle layers is linked to a higher risk of hallucinations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-01T17:27:31Z)
• ROVER: Benchmarking Reciprocal Cross-Modal Reasoning for Omnimodal Generation [79.17352367219736]
  ROVER tests the use of one modality to guide, verify, or refine outputs in the other.<n>ROVER is a human-annotated benchmark that explicitly targets reciprocal cross-modal reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-03T02:27:46Z)
• Active Confusion Expression in Large Language Models: Leveraging World Models toward Better Social Reasoning [31.08532996770416]
  Large language models (LLMs) exhibit cognitive confusion, logical inconsistencies, and conflation between objective world states and subjective belief states.<n>We propose an adaptive world model-enhanced reasoning mechanism that constructs a dynamic textual world model to track entity states and temporal sequences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-09T09:07:31Z)
• Roundtable Policy: Improving Scientific Reasoning and Narratives through Confidence-Weighted Consensus of LLMs [44.65081087151887]
  We introduce Roundtable Policy, a complementary inference-time reasoning framework that performs inference through the weighted consensus of multiple large language models (LLMs)<n>Our findings indicate that this approach significantly enhances reasoning in complex heterogeneous scientific tasks and improves scientific narratives in terms of creativity, rigor, and logical coherence.<n>Our approach emphasizes structured and interpretable consensus rather than opaque convergence, while requiring only black-box access and uniform procedures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-20T23:31:53Z)
• Learning to Reason via Mixture-of-Thought for Logical Reasoning [56.24256916896427]
  Mixture-of-Thought (MoT) is a framework that enables LLMs to reason across three complementary modalities: natural language, code, and truth-table.<n>MoT adopts a two-phase design: (1) self-evolving MoT training, which jointly learns from filtered, self-generated rationales across modalities; and (2) MoT inference, which fully leverages the synergy of three modalities to produce better predictions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-21T17:59:54Z)
• Failure Modes of LLMs for Causal Reasoning on Narratives [51.19592551510628]
  We investigate the interaction between world knowledge and logical reasoning.<n>We find that state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) often rely on superficial generalizations.<n>We show that simple reformulations of the task can elicit more robust reasoning behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-31T12:48:58Z)
• A Systematic Analysis of Large Language Models as Soft Reasoners: The Case of Syllogistic Inferences [5.141416267381492]
  We consider the case of syllogistic reasoning, an area of deductive reasoning studied extensively in logic and cognitive psychology. We investigate the effects of chain-of-thought reasoning, in-context learning, and supervised fine-tuning on syllogistic reasoning. Our results suggest that the behavior of pre-trained LLMs can be explained by cognitive science.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-17T08:59:04Z)
• From Heuristic to Analytic: Cognitively Motivated Strategies for Coherent Physical Commonsense Reasoning [66.98861219674039]
  Heuristic-Analytic Reasoning (HAR) strategies drastically improve the coherence of rationalizations for model decisions. Our findings suggest that human-like reasoning strategies can effectively improve the coherence and reliability of PLM reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-24T19:46:04Z)

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.