Related papers: The Reasoning Trap: An Information-Theoretic Bound…
Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) has emerged as a promising inference scaling method for Large Language Model (LLM) reasoning. However, it frequently suffers from belief entrenchment, where agents reinforce shared errors rather than correcting…
Content moderation systems are typically evaluated by measuring agreement with human labels. In rule-governed environments this assumption fails: multiple decisions may be logically consistent with the governing policy, and agreement…
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…
Multi-agent debate (MAD) is an emerging approach to improving the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs). Existing MAD methods rely on multiple rounds of interaction among agents to reach consensus, and the final output is…
Multi-agent debate (MAD) systems improve LLM reasoning through iterative deliberation, but remain vulnerable to debate collapse, a failure type where final agent decisions are compromised on erroneous reasoning. Existing methods lack…
We present a controlled study of multi-hop contextual reasoning in large language models, providing a clean demonstration of the task-method dissociation: rule-based pattern matching achieves 100% success on structured information retrieval…
Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) grounds large language models (LLMs) in external evidence, but fails when retrieved sources conflict or contain outdated or subjective information. Prior work address these issues independently but lack…
Large language models (LLMs) have recently demonstrated impressive capabilities in reasoning tasks. Currently, mainstream LLM reasoning frameworks predominantly focus on scaling up inference-time sampling to enhance performance. In…
Multi-agent debate system (MAD) imitating the process of human discussion in pursuit of truth, aims to align the correct cognition of different agents for the optimal solution. It is challenging to make various agents perform right and…
Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) improves LLM-agent accuracy but suffers from rapid context growth, limiting scalability in larger multi-agent settings. Existing methods prune low-utility communications using prior signals, such as token-level…
Argument Mining (AM) is a foundational technology for automated writing evaluation, yet traditional supervised approaches rely heavily on expensive, domain-specific fine-tuning. While Large Language Models (LLMs) offer a training-free…
The remarkable growth in large language model (LLM) capabilities has spurred exploration into multi-agent systems, with debate frameworks emerging as a promising avenue for enhanced problem-solving. These multi-agent debate (MAD)…
Multi-agent large language model (LLM) architectures increasingly rely on response-level aggregation, such as Majority Voting (MAJ), to raise reasoning ceilings. However, in open environments, agents are highly susceptible to stealthy…
Fact-checking research has extensively explored verification but less so the generation of natural-language explanations, crucial for user trust. While Large Language Models (LLMs) excel in text generation, their capability for producing…
As LLM agents transition to autonomous digital coworkers, maintaining deterministic goal-directedness in non-linear multi-turn conversations emerged as an architectural bottleneck. We identify and formalize a systemic failure mode termed…
Large language models (LLMs) achieve strong reasoning performance by allocating substantial computation at inference time, often generating long and verbose reasoning traces. While recent work on efficient reasoning reduces this overhead…
Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) is a collaborative framework in which multiple agents iteratively refine solutions through the generation of reasoning and alternating critique cycles. Current work primarily optimizes intra-round topologies and…
Multi-agent debate (MAD) aims to improve large language model (LLM) reasoning by letting multiple agents exchange answers and then aggregate their opinions. Yet recent studies reveal that agents are not neutral: they are prone to…
Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) has shown promise in leveraging collective intelligence to improve reasoning and reduce hallucinations, yet it remains unclear how information exchange shapes the underlying ability. Empirically, MAD exhibits…
The recent work by Shojaee et al. (2025), titled The Illusion of Thinking: Understanding the Strengths and Limitations of Reasoning Models via the Lens of Problem Complexity, presents a compelling empirical finding, a reasoning cliff, where…