Large Language Model (LLM) agent systems have advanced rapidly, driven by their strong generalization in zero-shot settings. To further enhance reasoning and accuracy on complex tasks, Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) has emerged as a promising framework that engages multiple LLM agents in structured debates to encourage diverse reasoning. However, triggering MAD for every query is inefficient, as it incurs substantial computational (token) cost and may even degrade accuracy by overturning correct single-agent answers. To address these limitations, we propose intelligent Multi-Agent Debate (iMAD), a token-efficient framework that selectively triggers MAD only when it is likely to be beneficial (i.e., correcting an initially wrong answer). To achieve this goal, iMAD learns generalizable model behaviors to make accurate debate decisions. Specifically, iMAD first prompts a single agent to produce a structured self-critique response, from which we extract 41 interpretable linguistic and semantic features capturing hesitation cues. Then, iMAD uses a lightweight debate-decision classifier, trained using our proposed FocusCal loss, to determine whether to trigger MAD, enabling robust debate decisions without test dataset-specific tuning. Through extensive experiments using six (visual) question answering datasets against five competitive baselines, we have shown that iMAD significantly reduces token usage (by up to 92%) while also improving final answer accuracy (by up to 13.5%).

AI Agents rely on Large Language Models (LLMs) and Multimodal-LLMs (MLLMs) to perform interpretation and inference in text and image tasks without post-training, where LLMs and MLLMs play the most critical role and determine the initial ability and limitations of AI Agents. Usually, AI Agents utilize sophisticated prompt engineering and external reasoning framework to obtain a promising interaction with LLMs, e.g., Chain-of-Thought, Iteration of Thought and Image-of-Thought. However, they are still constrained by the inherent limitations of LLM in understanding natural language, and the iterative reasoning process will generate a large amount of inference cost. To this end, we propose a novel AI Agent Reasoning Framework with Introspection of Thought (INoT) by designing a new LLM-Read code in prompt. It enables LLM to execute programmatic dialogue reasoning processes following the code in prompt. Therefore, self-denial and reflection occur within LLM instead of outside LLM, which can reduce token cost effectively. Through our experiments on six benchmarks for three different tasks, the effectiveness of INoT is verified, with an average improvement of 7.95\% in performance, exceeding the baselines. Furthermore, the token cost of INoT is lower on average than the best performing method at baseline by 58.3\%. In addition, we demonstrate the versatility of INoT in image interpretation and inference through verification experiments.

With the widespread adoption of large language models (LLMs) in practical applications, selecting an appropriate model requires balancing not only performance but also operational cost. The emergence of reasoning-capable models has further widened the cost gap between "thinking" (high reasoning) and "non-thinking" (fast, low-cost) modes. In this work, we reveal that approximately 58% of medical questions can be accurately answered by the non-thinking mode alone, without requiring the high-cost reasoning process. This highlights a clear dichotomy in problem complexity and suggests that dynamically routing queries to the appropriate mode based on complexity could optimize accuracy, cost-efficiency, and overall user experience. Based on this, we further propose SynapseRoute, a machine learning-based dynamic routing framework that intelligently assigns input queries to either thinking or non-thinking modes. Experimental results on several medical datasets demonstrate that SynapseRoute not only improves overall accuracy (0.8390 vs. 0.8272) compared to the thinking mode alone but also reduces inference time by 36.8% and token consumption by 39.66%. Importantly, qualitative analysis indicates that over-reasoning on simpler queries can lead to unnecessary delays and even decreased accuracy, a pitfall avoided by our adaptive routing. Finally, this work further introduces the Accuracy-Inference-Token (AIT) index to comprehensively evaluate the trade-offs among accuracy, latency, and token cost.

Multi-agent collaboration has emerged as a pivotal paradigm for addressing complex, distributed tasks in large language model (LLM)-driven applications. While prior research has focused on high-level architectural frameworks, the granular mechanisms governing agents, critical to performance and scalability, remain underexplored. This study systematically investigates four dimensions of collaboration strategies: (1) agent governance, (2) participation control, (3) interaction dynamics, and (4) dialogue history management. Through rigorous experimentation under two context-dependent scenarios: Distributed Evidence Integration (DEI) and Structured Evidence Synthesis (SES), we quantify the impact of these strategies on both task accuracy and computational efficiency. Our findings reveal that centralized governance, instructor-led participation, ordered interaction patterns, and instructor-curated context summarization collectively optimize the trade-off between decision quality and resource utilization with the support of the proposed Token-Accuracy Ratio (TAR). This work establishes a foundation for designing adaptive, scalable multi-agent systems, shifting the focus from structural novelty to strategic interaction mechanics.

Error detection (ED) in tabular data is crucial yet challenging due to diverse error types and the need for contextual understanding. Traditional ED methods often rely heavily on manual criteria and labels, making them labor-intensive. Large language models (LLM) can minimize human effort but struggle with errors requiring a comprehensive understanding of data context. In this paper, we propose ZeroED, a novel hybrid zero-shot error detection framework, which combines LLM reasoning ability with the manual label-based ED pipeline. ZeroED operates in four steps, i.e., feature representation, error labeling, training data construction, and detector training. Initially, to enhance error distinction, ZeroED generates rich data representations using error reason-aware binary features, pre-trained embeddings, and statistical features. Then, ZeroED employs LLM to label errors holistically through in-context learning, guided by a two-step reasoning process for detailed error detection guidelines. To reduce token costs, LLMs are applied only to representative data selected via clustering-based sampling. High-quality training data is constructed through in-cluster label propagation and LLM augmentation with verification. Finally, a classifier is trained to detect all errors. Extensive experiments on seven public datasets demonstrate that, ZeroED substantially outperforms state-of-the-art methods by a maximum 30% improvement in F1 score and up to 90% token cost reduction.

Graph-based Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has proven effective in integrating external knowledge into large language models (LLMs), improving their factual accuracy, adaptability, interpretability, and trustworthiness. A number of graph-based RAG methods have been proposed in the literature. However, these methods have not been systematically and comprehensively compared under the same experimental settings. In this paper, we first summarize a unified framework to incorporate all graph-based RAG methods from a high-level perspective. We then extensively compare representative graph-based RAG methods over a range of questing-answering (QA) datasets -- from specific questions to abstract questions -- and examine the effectiveness of all methods, providing a thorough analysis of graph-based RAG approaches. As a byproduct of our experimental analysis, we are also able to identify new variants of the graph-based RAG methods over specific QA and abstract QA tasks respectively, by combining existing techniques, which outperform the state-of-the-art methods. Finally, based on these findings, we offer promising research opportunities. We believe that a deeper understanding of the behavior of existing methods can provide new valuable insights for future research.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities across various natural language processing (NLP) scenarios, but they still face challenges when handling complex arithmetic and logical reasoning tasks. While Chain-Of-Thought (CoT) reasoning, self-consistency (SC) and self-correction strategies have attempted to guide models in sequential, multi-step reasoning, Multi-agent Debate (MAD) has emerged as a viable approach for enhancing the reasoning capabilities of LLMs. By increasing both the number of agents and the frequency of debates, the performance of LLMs improves significantly. However, this strategy results in a significant increase in token costs, presenting a barrier to scalability. To address this challenge, we introduce a novel sparsification strategy designed to reduce token costs within MAD. This approach minimizes ineffective exchanges of information and unproductive discussions among agents, thereby enhancing the overall efficiency of the debate process. We conduct comparative experiments on multiple datasets across various models, demonstrating that our approach significantly reduces the token costs in MAD to a considerable extent. Specifically, compared to MAD, our approach achieves an impressive reduction of up to 94.5\% in token costs while maintaining performance degradation below 2.0\%.

Reasoning is critical for large language models (LLMs) to excel in a wide range of tasks. While methods like Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning enhance LLM performance by decomposing problems into intermediate steps, they also incur significant overhead in token usage, leading to increased costs. We find that the reasoning process of current LLMs is unnecessarily lengthy and it can be compressed by including a reasonable token budget in the prompt, but the choice of token budget plays a crucial role in the actual compression effectiveness. We then propose a token-budget-aware LLM reasoning framework, which dynamically estimates token budgets for different problems based on reasoning complexity and uses the estimated token budgets to guide the reasoning process. Experiments show that our method effectively reduces token costs in CoT reasoning with only a slight performance reduction, offering a practical solution to balance efficiency and accuracy in LLM reasoning. Code: https://github.com/GeniusHTX/TALE.

In recent years, Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities across diverse NLP tasks. Extensive research has explored how to enhance the logical reasoning abilities such as Chain-of-Thought, Chain-of-Thought with Self-Consistency, Tree-Of-Thoughts, and multi-agent debates. In the context of multi-agent debates, significant performance improvements can be achieved with an increasing number of agents and debate rounds. However, the escalation in the number of agents and debate rounds can drastically raise the tokens cost of debates, thereby limiting the scalability of the multi-agent debate technique. To better harness the advantages of multi-agent debates in logical reasoning tasks, this paper proposes a method to significantly reduce token cost in multi-agent debates. This approach involves dividing all agents into multiple debate groups, with agents engaging in debates within their respective groups and sharing interim debate results between groups. Comparative experiments across multiple datasets have demonstrated that this method can reduce the total tokens by up to 51.7% during debates and while potentially enhancing accuracy by as much as 25%. Our method significantly enhances the performance and efficiency of interactions in the multi-agent debate.

Large language models (LLM) have proven to be effective at automated program repair (APR). However, using LLMs can be costly, with companies invoicing users by the number of tokens. In this paper, we propose CigaR, the first LLM-based APR tool that focuses on minimizing the repair cost. CigaR works in two major steps: generating a first plausible patch and multiplying plausible patches. CigaR optimizes the prompts and the prompt setting to maximize the information given to LLMs using the smallest possible number of tokens. Our experiments on 429 bugs from the widely used Defects4J and HumanEval-Java datasets shows that CigaR reduces the token cost by 73%. On average, CigaR spends 127k tokens per bug while the baseline uses 467k tokens per bug. On the subset of bugs that are fixed by both, CigaR spends 20k per bug while the baseline uses 608k tokens, a cost saving of 96%. Our extensive experiments show that CigaR is a cost-effective LLM-based program repair tool that uses a low number of tokens to automatically generate patches.