The Confident Liar: Diagnosing Multi-Agent Debate with Log-Probabilities and LLM-as-Judge

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.10296v1
• Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2026 01:33:15 GMT
• Title: The Confident Liar: Diagnosing Multi-Agent Debate with Log-Probabilities and LLM-as-Judge
• Abstract summary: This paper studies the relationship between three signals in multi-agent debate.<n>We examine whether internal confidence signals predict externally evaluated reasoning quality.<n>We find that confidence aligns with judged reasoning quality roughly twice as strongly for the Constructor as for the Auditor.
• Score: 2.1987782243719898
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Multi-agent debate systems are typically evaluated only on whether the final answer is correct, overlooking the quality of the intermediate reasoning that debate is designed to produce. This paper studies the relationship between three signals in multi-agent debate: token-level log-probability distributions over reasoning tokens, LLM-as-judge rubric scores assigned to those tokens, and final task accuracy. We examine whether internal confidence signals predict externally evaluated reasoning quality, and whether either signal aligns with task correctness, across three domains: rubric-based scoring, mathematical reasoning, and factual question answering. Our framework pairs a two-agent debate architecture -- a Constructor and an Auditor -- with an LLM-as-judge that scores each agent's reasoning along instruction following, justification quality, and evidence grounding, together with a critical-failure flag. Experiments in the rubric-scoring domain reveal a consistent four-phase confidence trajectory and a substantial role asymmetry: confidence aligns with judged reasoning quality roughly twice as strongly for the Constructor as for the Auditor, and confidence-based detection of critical reasoning failures is markedly more reliable for the Constructor (AUROC 0.804) than for the Auditor (0.634). These findings motivate the broader cross-domain investigation proposed in this paper.

Related papers

• Early-Token Confidence Predicts Reasoning Quality in Multi-Agent LLM Debate [2.1987782243719898]
  We investigate whether intrinsic confidence signals, token-level log-probabilities from decoding, can predict reasoning quality.<n>We find that early-token confidence, particularly within the first few generated tokens, is consistently the strongest predictor of reasoning quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-09T01:52:59Z)
• Measuring Reasoning Quality in LLMs: A Multi-Dimensional Behavioral Framework [9.601233098598456]
  This study proposes a unified multi-dimensional framework for measuring reasoning quality in LLMs from a behavioral perspective.<n>Experiments on seven LLMs across 975 items from four benchmarks demonstrate that the framework reveals behaviors invisible to accuracy-only metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-23T17:03:42Z)
• Time to REFLECT: Can We Trust LLM Judges for Evidence-based Research Agents? [61.49434544687523]
  We introduce REFLECT, a meta-evaluation benchmark targeting fine-grained failure detection in agentic environments.<n> REFLECT defines a detailed taxonomy of process- and outcome-level failure modes, instantiated by performing controlled and localized interventions.<n>Our experiments show that even the best-performing models achieve overall accuracies below 55% across reasoning, tool-use, and report-quality failures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-18T23:55:08Z)
• TRUST: A Framework for Decentralized AI Service v.0.1 [47.384270414446604]
  Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) and Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) in high-stakes domains demand reliable verification.<n>We introduce TRUST (Transparent, Robust, and Unified Services for Trustworthy AI), a decentralized framework with three innovations.<n>We prove a Safety-Profitability Theorem ensuring honest auditors profit while malicious actors incur losses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-29T19:32:58Z)
• FACT-E: Causality-Inspired Evaluation for Trustworthy Chain-of-Thought Reasoning [49.65751420291115]
  Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting has improved LLM reasoning, but models often generate explanations that appear coherent while containing unfaithful intermediate steps.<n>We propose FACT-E, a causality-inspired framework for evaluating CoT quality.<n>We show that FACT-E improves reasoning-trajectory selection and yields stronger in-context learnings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-12T15:35:08Z)
• 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)
• Rubric-Conditioned LLM Grading: Alignment, Uncertainty, and Robustness [4.129847064263056]
  We systematically evaluate the performance of Large Language Models for rubric-based short-answer grading.<n>We find that alignment is strong for binary tasks but degrades with increased rubric granularity.<n>Experiments reveal that while the model is resilient to prompt injection, it is sensitive to synonym substitutions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-21T05:22:04Z)
• FaithCoT-Bench: Benchmarking Instance-Level Faithfulness of Chain-of-Thought Reasoning [62.452350134196934]
  FaithCoT-Bench is a unified benchmark for instance-level CoT unfaithfulness detection.<n>Our framework formulates unfaithfulness detection as a discriminative decision problem.<n>FaithCoT-Bench sets a solid basis for future research toward more interpretable and trustworthy reasoning in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-05T05:16:54Z)
• TrustJudge: Inconsistencies of LLM-as-a-Judge and How to Alleviate Them [58.04324690859212]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) as automated evaluators (LLM-as-a-judge) has revealed critical inconsistencies in current evaluation frameworks.<n>We identify two fundamental types of inconsistencies: Score-Comparison Inconsistency and Pairwise Transitivity Inconsistency.<n>We propose TrustJudge, a probabilistic framework that addresses these limitations through two key innovations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-25T13:04:29Z)
• Debate, Deliberate, Decide (D3): A Cost-Aware Adversarial Framework for Reliable and Interpretable LLM Evaluation [0.0]
  We present Debate, Deliberate, Decide (D3), a cost-aware, adversarial multi-agent framework that orchestrates structured debate among role-specialized agents.<n>We develop a probabilistic model of score gaps that characterizes reliability and convergence under iterative debate.<n>We show state-of-the-art agreement with human judgments, reduced positional and verbosity biases via anonymization, and a favorable cost-accuracy frontier.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-07T00:22:07Z)
• Think Twice Before Trusting: Self-Detection for Large Language Models through Comprehensive Answer Reflection [90.71323430635593]
  We propose a novel self-detection paradigm that considers the comprehensive answer space beyond LLM-generated answers. Building upon this paradigm, we introduce a two-step framework, which firstly instructs LLM to reflect and provide justifications for each candidate answer. This framework can be seamlessly integrated with existing approaches for superior self-detection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-15T02:38:26Z)

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.