Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 cited by

Enhancing LLM Performance Through Debate: An Empirical Study on Multi-Agent Debate for Coding Tasks

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2503.12029 v2 pith:HT4E3YGN submitted 2025-03-15 cs.SE

Enhancing LLM Performance Through Debate: An Empirical Study on Multi-Agent Debate for Coding Tasks

classification cs.SE
keywords debatetasksagentscodingstructuredagentcollaborativedecision-making
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) have advanced autonomous agents' planning and decision-making, yet they struggle with complex tasks requiring diverse expertise and multi-step reasoning. Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) systems, introduced in NLP research, address this gap by enabling structured debates among LLM-based agents to refine solutions iteratively. MAD promotes divergent thinking through role-specific agents, dynamic interactions, and structured decision-making. Recognizing parallels between Software Engineering (SE) and collaborative human problem-solving, this study investigates MAD's effectiveness on four coding tasks in SE. We adapt a MAD framework from NLP, analyze agent interactions to assess consensus-building and iterative refinement, and propose two MAD variants that enhance agent debate for coding tasks by addressing the observed weaknesses. Our findings show that structured debate and collaboration improve problem-solving and yield strong performance in some cases, highlighting the collaborative debate synergy between LLM agents for coding tasks in SE while identifying areas for future exploration.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Multi-Agent Debate Strategies: Survey, Taxonomy, and Challenges

    cs.SE 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0

    A systematic review of 141 papers derives a three-axis taxonomy of multi-agent debate design (participants, interaction, agreement) and shows the field has converged on a narrow default pattern.

  2. Free-MAD: Consensus-Free Multi-Agent Debate

    cs.AI 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0

    Free-MAD picks the winning answer by scoring the full trajectory of agents' answers across debate rounds, beating majority voting with fewer rounds.

  3. What Do Agents Communicate? Characterizing Information Exchange in Multi-Agent Systems

    cs.MA 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Systematic study of inter-agent communication in LLM multi-agent systems shows reasoning and verification are critical for performance, with a new augmentation technique recovering 86.2% of failures.

  4. Understanding Conversational Patterns in Multi-agent Programming: A Case Study on Fibonacci Game Development

    cs.SE 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Case study of 12 LLM agent pairs on Fibonacci game development finds only DeepSeek-R1:DeepSeek-R1 converges correctly from the first iteration while others either diverge or fail to converge.

  5. Fair Agents: Balancing Multistakeholder Alignment in Multi-Agent Personalization Systems

    cs.IR 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    The authors propose a conceptual framework integrating stakeholder-LLM alignment methods, social choice-based aggregation for collective decisions, and stakeholder-centric evaluations to achieve fair multi-agent perso...