arXiv (All)
open access
Multi-Agent Debate for Belief Optimization in Defeasible Domains
Multi-agent debate has emerged as a promising approach for improving LLM reasoning on ground-truth tasks, yet current methodologies face certain structural limitations: debate tends to induce a martingale over belief trajectories, majority voting accounts for most observed gains, and LLMs exhibit co
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- When Debate Helps: Proposal Supply and Verification-Aware Readout in Multi-Agent Reasoning#1200337
- Multi-Agent Debate Strategies: Survey, Taxonomy, and Challenges#411117
- Bias Control and Injection for Multi-Agent Aggregation#1356626
- Collective Regimes in Multi-Agent LLMs under Reasoning Effort and Communication Topology#1130727
- Group Perspective Matters: Regulating Debate Relationships Can Mitigate Blind Conformity in Multi-Agent Debate#1413758
Record · ID 1457286
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive