{"record_type":"pith_number_record","schema_url":"https://pith.science/schemas/pith-number/v1.json","pith_number":"pith:2025:KXXSLKZGQMSEAOPDV2IAJHZLOF","short_pith_number":"pith:KXXSLKZG","schema_version":"1.0","canonical_sha256":"55ef25ab2683244039e3ae90049f2b7155a9b89f122a8bdd119f3e68524956f8","source":{"kind":"arxiv","id":"2509.11035","version":1},"attestation_state":"computed","paper":{"title":"Free-MAD: Consensus-Free Multi-Agent Debate","license":"http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/","headline":"","cross_cats":["cs.CR"],"primary_cat":"cs.AI","authors_text":"Cong Zuo, Haibin Zhang, Hang Fu, Licheng Wang, Yu Cui","submitted_at":"2025-09-14T01:55:01Z","abstract_excerpt":"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 selected by majority voting in the last round. However, this consensus-based design faces several limitations. First, multiple rounds of communication increases token overhead and limits scalability. Second, due to the inherent conformity of LLMs, agents that initially produce correct responses may be influenced by incorrect ones during the debate process, ca"},"verification_status":{"content_addressed":true,"pith_receipt":true,"author_attested":false,"weak_author_claims":0,"strong_author_claims":0,"externally_anchored":false,"storage_verified":false,"citation_signatures":0,"replication_records":0,"graph_snapshot":true,"references_resolved":false,"formal_links_present":false},"canonical_record":{"source":{"id":"2509.11035","kind":"arxiv","version":1},"metadata":{"license":"http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/","primary_cat":"cs.AI","submitted_at":"2025-09-14T01:55:01Z","cross_cats_sorted":["cs.CR"],"title_canon_sha256":"b0093dc631198f2e117d7d04ac93a17b9d86f6b05f364e00fab9279013454bf8","abstract_canon_sha256":"08b9ab959f0fe88915bcf5042643efea37afa05bdf7366780bf8d4baac9efbbf"},"schema_version":"1.0"},"receipt":{"kind":"pith_receipt","key_id":"pith-v1-2026-05","algorithm":"ed25519","signed_at":"2026-07-05T12:11:32.297531Z","signature_b64":"4sXZtLwzVVB19VySAosmJv8ut3GVMvuUg67IGTc4AU3jhUoySMD3vBuOMuNGKXWYiOViHTpdOxbgm6aXQW4BCw==","signed_message":"canonical_sha256_bytes","builder_version":"pith-number-builder-2026-05-17-v1","receipt_version":"0.3","canonical_sha256":"55ef25ab2683244039e3ae90049f2b7155a9b89f122a8bdd119f3e68524956f8","last_reissued_at":"2026-07-05T12:11:32.297101Z","signature_status":"signed_v1","first_computed_at":"2026-07-05T12:11:32.297101Z","public_key_fingerprint":"8d4b5ee74e4693bcd1df2446408b0d54"},"graph_snapshot":{"paper":{"title":"Free-MAD: Consensus-Free Multi-Agent Debate","license":"http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/","headline":"","cross_cats":["cs.CR"],"primary_cat":"cs.AI","authors_text":"Cong Zuo, Haibin Zhang, Hang Fu, Licheng Wang, Yu Cui","submitted_at":"2025-09-14T01:55:01Z","abstract_excerpt":"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 selected by majority voting in the last round. However, this consensus-based design faces several limitations. First, multiple rounds of communication increases token overhead and limits scalability. Second, due to the inherent conformity of LLMs, agents that initially produce correct responses may be influenced by incorrect ones during the debate process, ca"},"claims":{"count":0,"items":[],"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"source":{"id":"2509.11035","kind":"arxiv","version":1},"verdict":{"id":null,"model_set":{},"created_at":null,"strongest_claim":"","one_line_summary":"","pipeline_version":null,"weakest_assumption":"","pith_extraction_headline":""},"integrity":{"clean":true,"summary":{"advisory":0,"critical":0,"by_detector":{},"informational":0},"endpoint":"/pith/2509.11035/integrity.json","findings":[],"available":true,"detectors_run":[],"snapshot_sha256":"c28c3603d3b5d939e8dc4c7e95fa8dfce3d595e45f758748cecf8e644a296938"},"references":{"count":0,"sample":[],"resolved_work":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57","internal_anchors":0},"formal_canon":{"evidence_count":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"author_claims":{"count":0,"strong_count":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"builder_version":"pith-number-builder-2026-05-17-v1"},"aliases":[{"alias_kind":"arxiv","alias_value":"2509.11035","created_at":"2026-07-05T12:11:32.297166+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"arxiv_version","alias_value":"2509.11035v1","created_at":"2026-07-05T12:11:32.297166+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"doi","alias_value":"10.48550/arxiv.2509.11035","created_at":"2026-07-05T12:11:32.297166+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_12","alias_value":"KXXSLKZGQMSE","created_at":"2026-07-05T12:11:32.297166+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_16","alias_value":"KXXSLKZGQMSEAOPD","created_at":"2026-07-05T12:11:32.297166+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_8","alias_value":"KXXSLKZG","created_at":"2026-07-05T12:11:32.297166+00:00"}],"events":[],"event_summary":{},"paper_claims":[],"inbound_citations":{"count":5,"internal_anchor_count":0,"sample":[{"citing_arxiv_id":"2606.25191","citing_title":"To Isolate or to Score? Model-Adaptive Assessment for Cost-Efficient Multi-Agent RAG","ref_index":30,"is_internal_anchor":false},{"citing_arxiv_id":"2606.24976","citing_title":"Diagnosing and Mitigating Compounding Failures in Agentic Persuasion via Taxonomic Strategy Retrieval","ref_index":22,"is_internal_anchor":false},{"citing_arxiv_id":"2606.00820","citing_title":"Not All Flips Are Conformity: Decomposing Stance Convergence in Multi-Agent LLM Debate","ref_index":17,"is_internal_anchor":false},{"citing_arxiv_id":"2604.09679","citing_title":"Heterogeneous Consensus-Progressive Reasoning for Efficient Multi-Agent Debate","ref_index":32,"is_internal_anchor":false},{"citing_arxiv_id":"2605.08647","citing_title":"AgentCollabBench: Diagnosing When Good Agents Make Bad Collaborators","ref_index":8,"is_internal_anchor":false}]},"formal_canon":{"evidence_count":0,"sample":[],"anchors":[]},"links":{"html":"https://pith.science/pith/KXXSLKZGQMSEAOPDV2IAJHZLOF","json":"https://pith.science/pith/KXXSLKZGQMSEAOPDV2IAJHZLOF.json","graph_json":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/KXXSLKZGQMSEAOPDV2IAJHZLOF/graph.json","events_json":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/KXXSLKZGQMSEAOPDV2IAJHZLOF/events.json","paper":"https://pith.science/paper/KXXSLKZG"},"agent_actions":{"view_html":"https://pith.science/pith/KXXSLKZGQMSEAOPDV2IAJHZLOF","download_json":"https://pith.science/pith/KXXSLKZGQMSEAOPDV2IAJHZLOF.json","view_paper":"https://pith.science/paper/KXXSLKZG","resolve_alias":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/resolve?arxiv=2509.11035&json=true","fetch_graph":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/KXXSLKZGQMSEAOPDV2IAJHZLOF/graph.json","fetch_events":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/KXXSLKZGQMSEAOPDV2IAJHZLOF/events.json","actions":{"anchor_timestamp":"https://pith.science/pith/KXXSLKZGQMSEAOPDV2IAJHZLOF/action/timestamp_anchor","attest_storage":"https://pith.science/pith/KXXSLKZGQMSEAOPDV2IAJHZLOF/action/storage_attestation","attest_author":"https://pith.science/pith/KXXSLKZGQMSEAOPDV2IAJHZLOF/action/author_attestation","sign_citation":"https://pith.science/pith/KXXSLKZGQMSEAOPDV2IAJHZLOF/action/citation_signature","submit_replication":"https://pith.science/pith/KXXSLKZGQMSEAOPDV2IAJHZLOF/action/replication_record"}},"created_at":"2026-07-05T12:11:32.297166+00:00","updated_at":"2026-07-05T12:11:32.297166+00:00"}