CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 6Multi-Agent Systems and NegotiationLogic, Reasoning, and KnowledgeAdversarial Robustness in Machine Learning

Talk Isn't Always Cheap: Understanding Failure Modes in Multi-Agent Debate

Open access
Wynn, Andrea, Satija, Harsh, Hadfield, Gillian·2025·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2509.05396arXiv 2509.05396
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

While multi-agent debate has been proposed as a promising strategy for improving AI reasoning ability, we find that debate can sometimes be harmful rather than helpful. Prior work has primarily focused on debates within homogeneous groups of agents, whereas we explore how diversity in model capabilities influences the dynamics and outcomes of multi-agent interactions. Through a series of experiments, we demonstrate that debate can lead to a decrease in accuracy over time - even in settings where stronger (i.e., more capable) models outnumber their weaker counterparts. Our analysis reveals that models frequently shift from correct to incorrect answers in response to peer reasoning, favoring agreement over challenging flawed reasoning. We perform additional experiments investigating various potential contributing factors to these harmful shifts - including sycophancy, social conformity, and model and task type. These results highlight important failure modes in the exchange of reasons during multi-agent debate, suggesting that naive applications of debate may cause performance degradation when agents are neither incentivised nor adequately equipped to resist persuasive but incorrect reasoning.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Multi-agent debate can reduce accuracy rather than improve it, especially in heterogeneous groups where weaker agents disrupt stronger ones. The paper traces these failures to correct-to-incorrect answer flips driven by social pressure and agreement-seeking, with a correctness-payoff prompt failing to mitigate them.

Key findings

  • Debate sometimes harms performance: on CommonSenseQA, debate always reduced accuracy in the reported configurations, even when stronger models outnumbered weaker ones. For example, one 3-agent configuration fell from 75.6 ± 2.2 to 74.8 ± 2.1 (↓0.8) on CommonSenseQA, and another fell from 33.6 ± 1.8 to 24.4 ± 2.9 (↓9.2) on MMLU; on GSM8K, one configuration rose from 43.6 ± 1.5 to 46.4 ± 1.4 (↑2.8).
  • Performance often degrades as debate progresses, especially on MMLU and CommonSenseQA, including groups with a majority of stronger agents.
  • Correct-to-incorrect transitions exceed incorrect-to-correct transitions; agents that resist flipping correct answers in round 1 show lower resistance to social pressure in round 2.
  • The likelihood of an undesirable correct-to-incorrect flip is highest when the ego agent is isolated and decreases as more peers agree. A correctness-payoff prompt did not significantly reduce these flips and in many cases increased them.

Methods

  • Uses the multi-agent debate framework from Du et al. and Subramaniam et al.: N agents answer a question, then debate for T = 2 rounds, with final answer by majority vote.
  • Evaluates on CommonSenseQA, MMLU, and GSM8K, using 100 random samples per task and 5 random seeds; models are GPT-4o-mini, LLaMA-3.1-8B-Instruct, and Mistral-7B-Instruct-v0.2, with default temperature, top_p = 0.9, and max generation length 2048 tokens.
  • Compares majority vote without debate versus after debate, analyzes answer transitions across rounds, social agreement effects, and a correctness-payoff prompt intervention.

Limitations

  • The paper does not include a dedicated limitations section.
  • Evident from the text: experiments use only 100 random samples per task, 5 seeds, T = 2 debate rounds, three models, and three datasets, so generality beyond these settings is not established.
  • The social-influence analysis is described by the authors as “strong preliminary evidence,” and the paper notes substantial variation across models and tasks, indicating no single mechanism fully explains debate failures.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2509.05396

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

2 of 6 cited sources checked · 1 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Findingown data
    § Gillian K. Hadfield · p. 2

    Debate may degrade performance compared to majority voting.

    “In Section 5.1, we demonstrate that debate may degrade performance compared to majority voting.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: There exists a ground truth answer for each question in the dataset.
  • Findingown data
    § Abstract · p. 1

    Multi-agent debate can sometimes be harmful rather than helpful, degrading performance compared to no debate or single-agent.

    “While multi-agent debate has been proposed as a promising strategy for improving AI reasoning ability, we find that debate can sometimes be harmful rather than helpful.”
    • Also stated in: § 1 Introduction · p. 1 · boosted
      “Through a series of empirical studies, we show that multi-agent debate can sometimes degrade performance, leading to worse final answers than those generated by a single agent acting alone.”
    • Also stated in: § 5.1 Effectiveness of Debate · p. 5 · plain
      “We present results showing that debate can sometimes be harmful rather than helpful - in particular, that sometimes agents perform better without any debate than after exchanging reasons with other agents.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: There exists a ground truth answer for each question in the dataset.
  • Findingown data
    § 5.1 Effectiveness of Debate · p. 5

    In CommonSenseQA, debate always harms performance.

    “We find that in the case of CommonSenseQA, which was not studied in prior work on multi-agent debate [Du et al., 2023], debate always harms performance.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: There exists a ground truth answer for each question in the dataset.
  • Findingown data
    § Abstract · p. 1

    Debate can lead to a decrease in accuracy over time, even when stronger (more capable) models outnumber weaker ones.

    “Through a series of experiments, we demonstrate that debate can lead to a decrease in accuracy over time - even in settings where stronger (i.e., more capable) models outnumber their weaker counterparts.”
    • Also stated in: § Gillian K. Hadfield · p. 1 · plain
      “Moreover, in certain cases, the longer a debate continues, the more performance can degrade.”
    • Also stated in: § Gillian K. Hadfield · p. 2 · hedged
      “Additionally, in Section 5.2 we show that the performance may progressively deteriorate as the debate progresses.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: There exists a ground truth answer for each question in the dataset.
  • Findingnone given
    § 6 Failure Modes of Debate · p. 7

    Debates between LLM agents often fail to reach majority agreement on the true answer, even when at least one agent is initially correct.

    “Yet, debates between LLM agents often fail to reach majority agreement on the true answer, even when at least one agent is initially correct.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 3
  • May combine two claims. 7

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § 6.1 Does exchange of reasoning help in sequential revision? · p. 7

    The self-correction capability of single-agent LLMs does not easily work out of the box.

    “We know the self-correction capability of single-agent LLMs does not easily work out of the box [Huang et al., 2023]”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Huang et al., 2023 source

      The Introduction (p. 1) reports that LLMs struggle to correct their own reasoning without external feedback, and the Conclusion (p. 8) reiterates that finding. This supports the claim's general thrust, but the paper tests intrinsic self-correction of reasoning, not single-agent self-correction across tasks generally. (LLM, conf=0.82)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § 6.3 Are agents sycophantic? · p. 9

    Political scientists have found that partisan bias effects on question-answering accuracy are significantly reduced when respondents are offered a monetary bonus for correct answers.

    “Political scientists have found that partisan bias effects on questionanswering accuracy [Bartels, 2002] are significantly reduced when respondents are offered a monetary bonus for correct answers [Bullock et al., 2015, Prior et al., 2015].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Bartels, 2002 source
    • cites Bullock et al., 2015 source
    • cites Prior et al., 2015 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Gillian K. Hadfield · p. 2

    Several key factors mediate the success or failure of debate, including task type and complexity, agent diversity and capability, and social influence.

    “Instead, we uncover several key factors that mediate the success or failure of debate, including task type and complexity, agent diversity and capability, and social influence.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: There exists a ground truth answer for each question in the dataset.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 5.1 Effectiveness of Debate · p. 5

    Even when groups include more strong models than weak ones, debate does not always yield performance gains and can decrease performance.

    “A key insight is that even when groups include more 'strong' models (e.g., GPT) than 'weak' ones (e.g., Mistral), the process of debate does not always yield performance gains.”
    • Also stated in: § 5.1 Effectiveness of Debate · p. 5 · boosted
      “Contrary to the prevailing narrative that debate improves collective reasoning, our experiments demonstrate that performance can actually decrease after agents engage in debate, even when stronger models outnumber weaker ones.”
    • Also stated in: § Gillian K. Hadfield · p. 1 · plain
      “These findings hold even when there is variation in the abilities of the participating LLM agents.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: There exists a ground truth answer for each question in the dataset.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Gillian K. Hadfield · p. 1

    The presence of weaker agents in a debate can negatively affect performance, disrupting stronger agents and producing worse outcomes than if the agents had not engaged in discussion.

    “For instance, we discover that introducing a weak or less capable (lower-performing) LLM agent into a debate with a strong or more capable (higher-performing) agent can detrimentally affect the debate outcome, producing results worse than if the agents had not engaged in discussion.”
    • Also stated in: § Gillian K. Hadfield · p. 1 · plain
      “The presence of a weaker agent disrupts the performance of the stronger agent.”
    • Also stated in: § Gillian K. Hadfield · p. 2 · plain
      “In Section 5, we observe that the presence of weaker agents can negatively affect performance.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: There exists a ground truth answer for each question in the dataset.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 5.2 Performance Degradation during Debate · p. 6

    The performance degradation trend during debate appears across datasets, but is especially pronounced in MMLU and CommonSenseQA.

    “This trend appears across datasets, but is especially pronounced in MMLU and CommonSenseQA”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § 6.3 Are agents sycophantic? · p. 8

    LLMs may exhibit sycophantic behavior, meaning the tendency, potentially due to RLHF, to prefer answers that match users' beliefs over correct answers.

    “models may exhibit sycophantic behavior [Sharma et al., 2023] meaning the tendency, potentially due to RLHF [Kaufmann et al., 2024], of LLMs to prefer answers that match users' beliefs over correct answers.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Sharma et al., 2023

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Kaufmann et al., 2024

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § 7 Discussion · p. 10

    Additional exchange of reasons between agents does not always correct mistakes; instead, it may amplify them.

    “In other words, additional exchange of reasons between agents does not always correct mistakes; instead, it may amplify them.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § 6.4 Influence of Model and Task Type · p. 10

    No single mechanism, such as sycophancy alone, can fully explain debate failures; rather, the interplay between model capability, task characteristics, and social influence jointly determines how and when agents revise their beliefs.

    “Together, these findings indicate that no single mechanism, such as sycophancy alone, can fully explain debate failures: rather, the interplay between model capability, task characteristics, and social influence jointly determines how and when agents revise their beliefs.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § 7 Discussion · p. 10

    Multiple factors exist that likely contribute to failure modes in multi-agent debate, with the net effect that heterogeneous groups of models frequently converge on wrong answers together, potentially negating the benefits of multi-agent debate.

    “We find that beyond a simple single cause, multiple factors exist that likely contribute to failure modes in multi-agent debate, with the net effect that heterogeneous groups of models frequently converge on wrong answers together, potentially negating the benefits of multi-agent debate.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
10 of 10

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    There exists a ground truth answer for each question in the dataset.

    “We assume that there exists a ground truth answer a ⋆ ∈ A for each question q ∈ Q which is denoted by f gt : Q → A , i.e., f gt ( q ) = a ⋆ .”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Multi-agent debate is intended to improve reasoning by leveraging disagreement-encouraging models to refine their arguments through interaction and converge on correct conclusions.

    “Multi-agent debate is intended to improve reasoning by leveraging disagreement-encouraging models to refine their arguments through interaction and converge on correct conclusions.”
2 of 2

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Aaron Grattafiori et al. The llama 3 herd of models, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2407. 21783 .
  2. Xuezhi Wang, Jason Wei, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc Le, Ed Chi, Sharan Narang, Aakanksha Chowdhery, and Denny Zhou. Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.11171 . · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wynn, A., Satija, H., & Hadfield, G.
ORCID
Hadfield, Gillian
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2509.05396
arXiv
2509.05396
OpenAlex
W4415058938
Cited by
1
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Multi-Agent Systems and Negotiation
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Logic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
Keywords
multi-agent debate, failure modes, sycophancy, conformity, AI reasoning, accuracy degradation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-07.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-07.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review