Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) has emerged as a promising paradigm for improving the performance of large language models through collaborative reasoning. Despite recent advances, the key factors driving MAD's effectiveness remain unclear. In this work, we disentangle MAD into two key components-Majority Voting and inter-agent Debate-and assess their respective contributions. Through extensive experiments across seven NLP benchmarks, we find that Majority Voting alone accounts for most of the performance gains typically attributed to MAD. To explain this, we propose a theoretical framework that models debate as a stochastic process. We prove that it induces a martingale over agents' belief trajectories, implying that debate alone does not improve expected correctness. Guided by these insights, we demonstrate that targeted interventions, by biasing the belief update toward correction, can meaningfully enhance debate effectiveness. Overall, our findings suggest that while MAD has potential, simple ensembling methods remain strong and more reliable alternatives in many practical settings.

We first take a theoretical approach to analyzing debate and provide a framework through which debate can be mathematically examined. Building on this framework, we provide several theoretical results for multi-agent debate.

Fact-checking health-related claims has become increasingly critical as misinformation proliferates online. Effective verification requires both the retrieval of high-quality evidence and rigorous reasoning processes. In this paper, we propose a two-stage framework for health misinformation detection: Agreement Score Prediction followed by Multi-Agent Debate. In the first stage, we employ large language models (LLMs) to independently evaluate retrieved articles and compute an aggregated agreement score that reflects the overall evidence stance. When this score indicates insufficient consensus-falling below a predefined threshold-the system proceeds to a second stage. Multiple agents engage in structured debate to synthesize conflicting evidence and generate well-reasoned verdicts with explicit justifications. Experimental results demonstrate that our two-stage approach achieves superior performance compared to baseline methods, highlighting the value of combining automated scoring with collaborative reasoning for complex verification tasks.

Specialized visual tools can augment large language models or vision language models with expert knowledge (e.g., grounding, spatial reasoning, medical knowledge, etc.), but knowing which tools to call (and when to call them) can be challenging. We introduce DART, a multi-agent framework that uses disagreements between multiple debating visual agents to identify useful visual tools (e.g., object detection, OCR, spatial reasoning, etc.) that can resolve inter-agent disagreement. These tools allow for fruitful multi-agent discussion by introducing new information, and by providing tool-aligned agreement scores that highlight agents in agreement with expert tools, thereby facilitating discussion. We utilize an aggregator agent to select the best answer by providing the agent outputs and tool information. We test DART on four diverse benchmarks and show that our approach improves over multi-agent debate as well as over single agent tool-calling frameworks, beating the next-strongest baseline (multi-agent debate with a judge model) by 3.4% and 2.4% on A-OKVQA and MMMU respectively. We also find that DART adapts well to new tools in applied domains, with a 1.3% improvement on the M3D medical dataset over other strong tool-calling, single agent, and multi-agent baselines. Additionally, we measure text overlap across rounds to highlight the rich discussion in DART compared to existing multi-agent methods. Finally, we study the tool call distribution, finding that diverse tools are reliably used to help resolve disagreement.

When people reason about cause and effect, they often consider many competing "what if" scenarios before deciding which explanation fits best. Analogously, advanced language models capable of causal inference can consider multiple interventions and counterfactuals to judge the validity of causal claims. Crucially, this type of reasoning is less like a single calculation and more like an internal dialogue between alternative hypotheses. In this paper, we make this dialogue explicit through a dual-agent debate framework where one model provides a structured causal inference, and the other critically examines this reasoning for logical flaws. When disagreements arise, agents attempt to persuade each other, challenging each other's logic and revising their conclusions until they converge on a mutually agreed answer. To take advantage of this deliberative process, we specifically use reasoning language models, whose strengths in both causal inference and adversarial debate remain under-explored relative to standard large language models. We evaluate our approach on the CLadder dataset, a benchmark linking natural language questions to formally defined causal graphs across all three rungs of Pearl's ladder of causation. With Qwen3 and DeepSeek-R1 as debater agents, we demonstrate that multi-agent debate improves DeepSeek-R1's overall accuracy in causal inference from 78.03% to 87.45%, with the counterfactual category specifically improving from 67.94% to 80.04% accuracy. Similarly, Qwen3's overall accuracy improves from 84.16% to 89.41%, and counterfactual questions from 71.53% to 80.35%, showing that strong models can still benefit greatly from debate with weaker agents. Our results highlight the potential of reasoning models as building blocks for multi-agent systems in causal inference, and demonstrate the importance of diverse perspectives in causal problem-solving.

Recent studies on LLM agent scaling have highlighted the potential of Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) to enhance reasoning abilities. However, the critical aspect of role allocation strategies remains underexplored. In this study, we demonstrate that allocating roles with differing viewpoints to specific positions significantly impacts MAD's performance in reasoning tasks. Specifically, we find a novel role allocation strategy, "Truth Last", which can improve MAD performance by up to 22% in reasoning tasks. To address the issue of unknown truth in practical applications, we propose the Multi-Agent Debate Consistency (MADC) strategy, which systematically simulates and optimizes its core mechanisms. MADC incorporates path consistency to assess agreement among independent roles, simulating the role with the highest consistency score as the truth. We validated MADC across a range of LLMs (9 models), including the DeepSeek-R1 Distilled Models, on challenging reasoning tasks. MADC consistently demonstrated advanced performance, effectively overcoming MAD's performance bottlenecks and providing a crucial pathway for further improvements in LLM agent scaling.

Multi-agent debate (MAD) has recently emerged as a promising framework for improving the reasoning performance of large language models (LLMs). Yet, whether LLM agents can genuinely engage in deliberative reasoning, beyond simple ensembling or majority voting, remains unclear. We address this question through a controlled study using the Knight--Knave--Spy logic puzzle, which enables precise, step-wise evaluation of debate outcomes and processes under verifiable ground truth. We systematically set up six structural and cognitive factors, including agent team size, composition, confidence visibility, debate order, debate depth, and task difficulty, to disentangle their respective effects on collective reasoning. Our results show that intrinsic reasoning strength and group diversity are the dominant drivers of debate success, while structural parameters such as order or confidence visibility offer limited gains. Beyond outcomes, process-level analyses identify key behavioral patterns: majority pressure suppresses independent correction, effective teams overturn incorrect consensus, and rational, validity-aligned reasoning most strongly predicts improvement. These findings provide valuable insights into how and why LLM debates succeed or fail, offering guidance for designing interpretable and truth-seeking multi-agent reasoning systems.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly explored for legal argument generation, yet they pose significant risks of manipulation through hallucination and ungrounded persuasion, and often fail to utilize provided factual bases effectively or abstain when arguments are untenable. This paper introduces a novel reflective multi-agent method designed to address these challenges in the context of legally compliant persuasion. Our approach employs specialized agents (factor analyst and argument polisher) in an iterative refinement process to generate 3-ply legal arguments (plaintiff, defendant, rebuttal). We evaluate reflective multi-agent against single-agent, enhanced-prompt single-agent, and non-reflective multi-agent baselines using four diverse LLMs (GPT-4o, GPT-4o-mini, Llama-4-Maverick-17b-128e, Llama-4-Scout-17b-16e) across three legal scenarios: "arguable", "mismatched", and "non-arguable". Results demonstrate that the reflective multi-agent approach excels at successful abstention by preventing generation when arguments cannot be grounded, improves hallucination accuracy by reducing fabricated and misattributed factors and enhances factor utilization recall by better using the provided case facts. These findings suggest that structured reflection within a multi-agent framework offers a robust method for fostering ethical persuasion and mitigating manipulation in LLM-based legal argumentation systems.

Multi-Agent Debate~(MAD) has emerged as a promising paradigm for improving the performance of large language models through collaborative reasoning. Despite recent advances, the key factors driving MAD's effectiveness remain unclear. In this work, we disentangle MAD into two key components--Majority Voting and inter-agent Debate--and assess their respective contributions. Through extensive experiments across seven NLP benchmarks, we find that Majority Voting alone accounts for most of the performance gains typically attributed to MAD. To explain this, we propose a theoretical framework that models debate as a stochastic process. We prove that it induces a martingale over agents' belief trajectories, implying that debate alone does not improve expected correctness. Guided by these insights, we demonstrate that targeted interventions, by biasing the belief update toward correction, can meaningfully enhance debate effectiveness. Overall, our findings suggest that while MAD has potential, simple ensembling methods remain strong and more reliable alternatives in many practical settings. Code is released in https://github.com/deeplearning-wisc/debate-or-vote.

While multi-agent debate has been proposed as a promising strategy for improving AI reasoning ability, we find that debate can sometimes be harmful rather than helpful. Prior work has primarily focused on debates within homogeneous groups of agents, whereas we explore how diversity in model capabilities influences the dynamics and outcomes of multi-agent interactions. Through a series of experiments, we demonstrate that debate can lead to a decrease in accuracy over time - even in settings where stronger (i.e., more capable) models outnumber their weaker counterparts. Our analysis reveals that models frequently shift from correct to incorrect answers in response to peer reasoning, favoring agreement over challenging flawed reasoning. We perform additional experiments investigating various potential contributing factors to these harmful shifts - including sycophancy, social conformity, and model and task type. These results highlight important failure modes in the exchange of reasons during multi-agent debate, suggesting that naive applications of debate may cause performance degradation when agents are neither incentivised nor adequately equipped to resist persuasive but incorrect reasoning.