Where Reasoning Diverges: Localized Multi-Agent Debate for Multi-Hop Question Answering
Weijun Gao, Xiang Ding, Haoyang Liu, Tiancheng Xing
Abstract
Multi-agent debate commonly exchanges complete rationales even when disagreements concern only a few intermediate claims. We introduce Localized Multi-Agent Debate (LMAD), an inference-time protocol that represents agent rationales as nodes, locates their earliest conflict, and restricts debate to the corresponding local segments. Guarded resolution extends a shared committed state so that later conflicts can be addressed without reopening accepted steps. We evaluate LMAD on four multi-hop question-answering benchmarks using ten backbones from four model families. Our method achieves the highest macro-averaged judge accuracy across all ten backbones, outperforming the strongest conventional baseline by up to 7.20 percentage points.
Create a lesson
Related papers
MUSE: Benchmarking Large Vision-Language Models on Multi-Modal Understanding in Situated Education
Luyao Zhu, Xun Wei Yee, Wei Li et al.
Infinite-Parameter LLMs: Generating and Adapting Weights from Live Data
Jinli Hu, Ross M. Clarke, Yichuan Zhang et al.
Compositional Policy Violations: When Step-Level Compliance Fails In Agentic AI Workflows
Ashwini Kurady, Sri Sai Charith Grandhi, Rajesh Gupta et al.
CERA-MoA: Co-Evolving Routing Mechanisms with Continually Learning LLM Agents
Jiaxuan Jiang, Liyuan He, Zhixuan Fang
Version- and Scope-Aware Question Answering over Normative Documents: A Deployed System and an End-to-End Evaluation at Production Scale
Liuyin Wang, Shuaipeng Jin, Jiwei Shi et al.
Clueing up LLMs with Tool-Augmented Deductive Reasoning
Rebecca Ansell, Autumn Toney-Wails