pith. sign in

hub Canonical reference

Improving Factuality and Reasoning in Language Models through Multiagent Debate

Canonical reference. 86% of citing Pith papers cite this work as background.

78 Pith papers citing it
Background 86% of classified citations
abstract

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in language generation, understanding, and few-shot learning in recent years. An extensive body of work has explored how their performance may be further improved through the tools of prompting, ranging from verification, self-consistency, or intermediate scratchpads. In this paper, we present a complementary approach to improve language responses where multiple language model instances propose and debate their individual responses and reasoning processes over multiple rounds to arrive at a common final answer. Our findings indicate that this approach significantly enhances mathematical and strategic reasoning across a number of tasks. We also demonstrate that our approach improves the factual validity of generated content, reducing fallacious answers and hallucinations that contemporary models are prone to. Our approach may be directly applied to existing black-box models and uses identical procedure and prompts for all tasks we investigate. Overall, our findings suggest that such "society of minds" approach has the potential to significantly advance the capabilities of LLMs and pave the way for further breakthroughs in language generation and understanding.

hub tools

citation-role summary

background 20 baseline 1 method 1

citation-polarity summary

claims ledger

  • abstract Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in language generation, understanding, and few-shot learning in recent years. An extensive body of work has explored how their performance may be further improved through the tools of prompting, ranging from verification, self-consistency, or intermediate scratchpads. In this paper, we present a complementary approach to improve language responses where multiple language model instances propose and debate their individual responses and reasoning processes over multiple rounds to arrive at a common final answer. Our findings

co-cited works

representative citing papers

Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail?

cs.AI · 2025-03-17 · unverdicted · novelty 8.0

The authors create the first large-scale dataset and taxonomy of failure modes in multi-agent LLM systems to explain their limited performance gains.

Test-Time Hinting for Black-Box Vision-Language Models

cs.CV · 2026-05-13 · unverdicted · novelty 7.0

Test-Time Hinting trains a hint generator to prepend contextual guidance to VLM prompts, improving accuracy on natural-image VQA benchmarks with generalization to unseen tasks and models.

Learning to Interrupt in Language-based Multi-agent Communication

cs.CL · 2026-04-07 · unverdicted · novelty 7.0

HANDRAISER learns optimal interruption points in multi-agent LLM communication using estimated future reward and cost, achieving 32.2% lower communication cost with comparable or better task results across games, scheduling, and debate.

Automated Design of Agentic Systems

cs.AI · 2024-08-15 · conditional · novelty 7.0

Meta Agent Search uses a meta-agent to iteratively program novel agentic systems in code, producing agents that outperform state-of-the-art hand-designed ones across coding, science, and math while transferring across domains and models.

Not Just RLHF: Why Alignment Alone Won't Fix Multi-Agent Sycophancy

cs.LG · 2026-05-13 · unverdicted · novelty 6.0 · 2 refs

Base LLMs show multi-agent yield to peer pressure at rates equal to or higher than aligned models, localized by activation patching to mid-layers where attention dominates, with one dissenter cutting yield by 54-73 points while prompt defenses fail on variants.

citing papers explorer

Showing 50 of 78 citing papers.