Multi-agent discussion gains less when dissent is withheld

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

LLM multi-agent systems can fall short.

“LLM multi-agent systems can fall short (Weng et al., 2025; Zhu et al., 2025; Zhang et al., 2024; Sharma et al., 2024).”

• cites Weng et al., 2025 sourceSupported
• cites Zhu et al., 2025 sourceSupported
• cites Zhang et al., 2024Not matched

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

May combine two claims.

As members see one another's views, the majority exerts pressure to conform, and the group converges on a shared answer without becoming more accurate.

“As members see one another's views, the majority exerts pressure to conform (Asch, 1956), and the group converges on a shared answer without becoming more accurate (Lorenz et al., 2011).”

• cites Asch, 1956 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Lorenz et al., 2011 sourceSupported

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

Some studies show that discussion, often run as multi-agent debate, outperforms standalone reasoning or voting, whereas others report no effect.

“Some studies show that discussion, often run as multi-agent debate, outperforms standalone reasoning or voting (Du et al., 2024; Liang et al., 2024; Chen et al., 2024), whereas others report no effect (Smit et al., 2024; Wang et al., 2024b; Kaesberg et al., 2025).”

• cites Du et al., 2024Not matched

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

• cites Liang et al., 2024Not matched

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

• cites Chen et al., 2024 sourceSupported

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Only public statements are visible to other agents.

“Only public statements are visible to other agents (Kuran, 1995; Garcia-Millan, 2020).”

• cites Kuran, 1995Not matched

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

• cites Garcia-Millan, 2020 sourceSupported

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Our model extends truth-seeking models based only on four repeatedly observed behaviors of LLM agents.

“our model does so based only on four repeatedly observed behaviors of LLM agents.”

• cites Fukushima, 2026 sourcePartly supported

  The Introduction (page unavailable) says the theory combines a crowding-generated network with a measured single-agent rule, supporting the general idea of a model grounded in agent behavior. The Conclusion (page unavailable) identifies two single-agent measurements, not four repeatedly observed behaviors; our copy does not substantiate that number or characterization. (LLM, conf=0.82)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
• cites Pavlova & Tanaka, 2026 sourcePartly supported

  Section 4 reports observed differences in how LLM agents use visual and social evidence, and Section 5.1 reports further differences in their responses to social memory. These passages support the general reference to observed agent behaviors, but the paper does not identify four repeatedly observed behaviors as the basis for a truth-seeking model. (LLM, conf=0.78)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

An agent that withholds its belief and conforms to the surroundings internalizes what it stated as its own belief with probability a.

“An agent that withholds its belief and conforms to the surroundings internalizes what it stated as its own belief with probability a (Weng et al., 2025; Hao et al., 2026).”

• cites Weng et al., 2025 sourcePartly supported

  Section 4.3 (page unavailable) reports that an LLM may conform to others even when it knows the correct answer. That supports the conformity part of the sentence, but the paper does not establish that the agent subsequently internalizes its stated answer as a belief, or give that event a probability of a. (LLM, conf=0.85)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
• cites Hao et al., 2026 sourcePartly supported

  Section 3.1 describes agents changing to a peer’s answer under stance exposure, supporting the conformity portion of the claim. It does not say that agents withhold a private belief or later internalize their stated answer with probability a; it explicitly treats its labels as behavioral attributions, not claims about latent cognitive mechanisms. No page number is available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.82)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

Private answers are operational measurements and are not guaranteed to reflect a belief held inside the LLM.

“we define the private answers as operational measurements, which are not guaranteed to reflect a belief held inside the LLM (Song et al., 2025; Rupprecht et al., 2026; Röttger et al., 2024).”

• cites Song et al., 2025 sourcePartly supported

  The Discussion (p. 10) says prompted responses should not be conflated with a model’s direct knowledge of language, supporting the caution that an answer need not reflect an internal state. But the paper tests linguistic knowledge and word prediction, not whether private answers generally reflect beliefs held inside an LLM. The definition of private answers as operational measurements is the citing authors’ own framing. (LLM, conf=0.82)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
• cites Rupprecht et al., 2026 sourceSupported
• cites Röttger et al., 2024 sourceSupported

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Other studies report that discussion can outperform individual reasoning or voting.

“In contrast, other studies report that discussion can outperform individual reasoning or voting (Du et al., 2024; Liang et al., 2024; Chen et al., 2024).”

• cites Du et al., 2024Not matched

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

• cites Liang et al., 2024Not matched

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

• cites Chen et al., 2024 sourceSupported

May combine two claims.

Above c*, two stable states coexist, and the single-agent accuracy p selects the destination.

“Above c ∗ , two stable states coexist, and the single-agent accuracy p selects the destination (Abramiuk-Szurlej et al., 2021; Ashery et al., 2025).”

• cites Abramiuk-Szurlej et al., 2021 sourcePartly supported

  The Monte Carlo results describe a range between two p spinodals in which ordered and disordered states can persist, depending on the initial condition. They do not describe coexistence as occurring above a c* threshold. The Model section defines p as the probability of anticonformity, not single-agent accuracy, and the reported destination depends on both p and the initial condition. (LLM, conf=0.86)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
• cites Ashery et al., 2025 sourcePartly supported

  The Results section, “Tipping points and critical mass” (page unavailable), describes consensus on either of two conventions as a steady state and reports a critical mass that can flip one convention to the other. It does not establish that two stable states coexist above a threshold c*, or that single-agent accuracy p selects the destination; its threshold concerns the size of a committed minority. (LLM, conf=0.84)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

May combine two claims.

Most prior models of collective opinion either lack a ground truth or assume full information sharing.

“However, most either lack a ground truth or assume full information sharing.”

• cites De Marzo et al., 2026b;aNot matched

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

• cites Okawa, 2026 sourceCould not verify

  Section 6 (Experiments; page unavailable) says the paper’s own synthetic tasks have no correct answers. Section 4 (Background: Social Dynamics Models; page unavailable) describes prior models, but neither it nor the searched passages says that most prior models lack ground truth or assume full information sharing. Searched for those terms and for prior opinion-dynamics models. (LLM, conf=0.73)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
• cites De Nobili, 2026 sourceCould not verify

  The Introduction and Conclusion discuss shared bias, cooperation, and whether multi-agent consensus is informative, but do not characterize most prior collective-opinion models as lacking a ground truth or assuming full information sharing. Searches for “ground truth” and “information sharing” found no passage in our copy addressing that claim. (LLM, conf=0.72)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

An agent that directly states its belief reconsiders its view with probability ρd_i proportional to the fraction of visible statements that dissent from its own, and reaches the correct answer through this reconsideration with probability r.

“Meanwhile, an agent that directly states its belief reconsiders its view with probability ρd i proportional to the fraction d i ∈ [0 , 1] of visible statements that dissent from its own, and reaches the correct answer through this reconsideration with probability r (Stechly et al., 2025; Jiang et al., 2025) (Fig. 1b).”

• cites Stechly et al., 2025Not matched

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

• cites Jiang et al., 2025 sourcePartly supported

  Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 1 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Post-training with reinforcement learning is known to narrow what a model produces.

“since post-training with reinforcement learning is known to narrow what a model produces (Kirk et al., 2024; Yue et al., 2025).”

• cites Kirk et al., 2024Not matched

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

• cites Yue et al., 2025 sourceSupported

May combine two claims.

Disabling reasoning lowers a and raises γ, which raises c*, allowing the team to recover even when more agents withhold.

“We find that disabling reasoning lowers a and raises γ , which raises c ∗ , allowing the team to recover even when more agents withhold.”

May combine two claims.

Reasoning models often state their dissent but also internalize the majority answers that other agents present to them.

“Reasoning models exemplify this situation: they often state their dissent but also internalize the majority answers that other agents present to them.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

Reasoning models share evidence selectively, disclosing what supports their own answer and keeping contrary evidence private, so the clues needed for correction stay hidden from the team.

“Reasoning models also share evidence selectively, disclosing what supports their own answer and keeping contrary evidence private, so the clues needed for correction stay hidden from the team.”

May combine two claims.

Instructions encouraging honesty reduce withholding, whereas instructions valuing cohesion push teams farther above the threshold.

“Specifically, instructions encouraging honesty reduce withholding, whereas instructions valuing cohesion push teams farther above the threshold.”

May combine two claims.

GPT-4o-mini achieves a higher evidence pooling rate but a lower utilization rate, while reasoning models show the opposite pattern.

“We find that GPT-4o-mini achieves a higher evidence pooling rate but a lower utilization rate, while reasoning models show the opposite pattern (Fig. 3f; Fig. 4 for each instruction), a divergence explained by this selective evidence sharing.”

May combine two claims.

As conformity instructions strengthen, the withholding rate ˆc rises, and LLM agents more often align with the majority.

“As conformity instructions strengthen, the withholding rate ˆ c , the share of opportunities to dissent in which an agent states the majority, rises, and LLM agents more often align with the majority (Fig. 2b).”

May combine two claims.

As a result, agents that keep their own answer in private correct an incorrect consensus more often, and the net correction rate and the gain from discussion rise.

“As a result, agents that keep their own answer in private correct an incorrect consensus more often, and the net correction rate and the gain from discussion rise (Fig. 2eg).”

May combine two claims.

Forcing c = 1 nearly removed the gain, while forcing c = 0 raised it only for gpt-4o-mini, and the other three models already agreed in private and in public and thus had no sizeable gain to begin with.

“Forcing c = 1 nearly removed the gain, while forcing c = 0 raised it only for gpt-4o-mini, the model whose public statements and private answers had diverged, and the other three models, gemini-3.8-flash among them, already agreed in private and in public and thus had no sizeable gain to begin with (Appendix C.1).”

May combine two claims.

Switching reasoning off in the same LLM produces no consistent shift in withholding but lowers internalization.

“Switching reasoning off in the same LLM produces no consistent shift in withholding (Fig. 5a) but lowers internalization.”

May combine two claims.

Discussion yields gains below c*, with diminishing returns as c approaches c* and zero above c*.

“Discussion yields gains below c ∗ , with diminishing returns as c approaches c ∗ and zero above c ∗ .”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: An agent reconsiders with a probability proportional to the dissent it sees.
• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: LLMs can make statements that differ from what they actually believe.

May combine two claims.

Settings under instruction C concentrate at the high-withholding end, so the team fails more often when instructed to conform to the majority.

“Settings under instruction C concentrate at this high-withholding end, so the team fails more often when instructed to conform to the majority, which is in line with what the mathematical model predicts.”

May combine two claims.

The model orders settings by margin correctly but underestimates how often a team whose round-0 majority was wrong recovers, and those recoveries occur when hidden clues reach the shared evidence, a path the model does not have.

“The model orders settings by margin correctly but underestimates how often a team whose round-0 majority was wrong recovers, and those recoveries occur when hidden clues reach the shared evidence, a path the model does not have (Fig. 8, Appendix C.1).”

May combine two claims.

Reasoning models withhold less overall and use shared evidence more effectively.

“Reasoning models withhold less overall and use shared evidence more effectively.”

May combine two claims.

Discussion gains are large on HiddenBench and small on MuSiQue and MedEInst; on MuSiQue the net correction is always negative, so c* stays at zero.

“Discussion gains are large on HiddenBench and small on MuSiQue and MedEInst (Fig. 3a-c); on MuSiQue the net correction is always negative, so c ∗ stays at zero.”

May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

Withholding is lowest on HiddenBench, higher on MuSiQue, higher again on the hidden profile task, and highest on MedEInst.

“Withholding is lowest on HiddenBench, where each private clue rules out one option and gives the agent holding it a clear reason to dissent. It is higher on MuSiQue, where a private paragraph covers only one step of a multi-step answer and gives weaker grounds to disagree. It is higher again on our hidden profile task, where the answer depends on counting findings and one private clue changes the”

May combine two claims.

GPT-4o-mini pools more decisive evidence and therefore gains more from discussion despite being the weaker model.

“GPT-4o-mini pools more of this decisive evidence and therefore gains more from discussion despite being the weaker model.”

The quote only partly states this claim.

The ordering of settings by the margin c - c* remained consistent across split-half analyses.

“The ordering of settings remained consistent across these splits.”

May combine two claims.

For q ≥ 3, a correct majority requires at least two correct statements among the q observed, so M_q(Y) = O(Y^2) ≃ 0.

“For q ≥ 3 , a correct majority requires at least two correct statements among the q observed, so M q ( Y ) = O ( Y 2 ) ≃ 0 .”

May combine two claims.

The jump point, at which a stable state of low accuracy appears, lies very close to but distinct from c*, and the jump occurs slightly before c*.

“The second is the jump point, at which a stable state of low accuracy appears. The two points lie very close to each other but are distinct, and the jump occurs slightly before c ∗ .”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: An agent reconsiders with a probability proportional to the dissent it sees.
• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: LLMs can make statements that differ from what they actually believe.

May combine two claims.

Team size, number of rounds, and initial accuracy introduce no bias in the estimates.

“Team size, number of rounds, and initial accuracy introduce no bias.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The ordering reported in the main text is the same either way (with or without accounting for correlation).

“The ordering reported in the main text is the same either way.”

May combine two claims.

When the true withholding rate is far from c*, the sign of c - c* is estimated correctly; at c* itself, the sign is correct only about half the time.

“When the true withholding rate is far from c ∗ , the sign of c -c ∗ is estimated correctly. At c ∗ itself, the sign is correct only about half the time.”

May combine two claims.

Withholding and internalization enter only where the majority contradicts the belief, and reconsideration enters wherever the agent states its belief.

“Withholding and internalization therefore enter only where the majority contradicts the belief, and reconsideration enters wherever the agent states its belief.”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: An agent reconsiders with a probability proportional to the dissent it sees.
• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: LLMs can make statements that differ from what they actually believe.

May combine two claims.

Setting c = 0 (transparent) increased the gain only for gpt-4o-mini, the one model where public and private answers differed in the control condition.

“Setting c = 0 (transparent) increased the gain only for gpt-4o-mini, the one model where public and private answers differed in the control condition.”

May combine two claims.

Increasing q lowers the jump point but leaves c* unchanged.

“increasing q lowers the jump point but leaves c ∗ unchanged”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: An agent reconsiders with a probability proportional to the dissent it sees.
• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: LLMs can make statements that differ from what they actually believe.

May combine two claims.

In the logs, the beliefs of gpt-4o-mini change whether or not dissent is visible, and reasoning models change their beliefs by yielding and then internalizing.

“In the logs, the beliefs of gpt-4o-mini change whether or not dissent is visible, and reasoning models change their beliefs by yielding and then internalizing.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

Reasoning agents tend to internalize exposed answers and to share only the evidence that supports their own answer.

“due to the tendency of reasoning agents to internalize exposed answers and to share only the evidence that supports their own answer.”

May combine two claims.

M3 vanishes as O(Y^2) for small Y, because a single correct statement among three never forms a majority.

“M 3 vanishes as O ( Y 2 ) for small Y , because a single correct statement among three never forms a majority.”

May combine two claims.

On MuSiQue, the margin equals c, because the net correction is negative in every setting and c* is therefore zero.

“On MuSiQue, the margin equals ˆ c , because the net correction is negative in every setting and c ∗ is therefore zero (Fig. 7).”

May combine two claims.

In the reasoning models the visible shared evidence and the private answer sit on the majority side of most rounds, and divergence between the two appears mainly for gpt-4o-mini and under instruction C.

“In the reasoning models the visible shared evidence and the private answer sit on the majority side of most rounds, and divergence between the two appears mainly for gpt-4o-mini and under instruction C (Fig. 9).”

May combine two claims.

The model predictions track the observations when the round-0 majority was already correct, and fall short when a team whose round-0 majority was incorrect recovers.

“The model predictions track the observations when the round-0 majority was already correct, and fall short when a team whose round-0 majority was incorrect recovers (Fig. 8).”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

In the hidden profile task, the agent facing the most dissent is usually the one holding the correct answer.

“In the hidden profile task, the agent facing the most dissent is usually the one holding the correct answer.”

May combine two claims.

Near the all-incorrect state a tie needs at least two correct statements for q ≥ 4, so the tie terms are O(Y^2) and do not change c*.

“Near the all-incorrect state a tie needs at least two correct statements for q ≥ 4 , so the tie terms are O ( Y 2 ) and do not change c ∗ .”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: An agent reconsiders with a probability proportional to the dissent it sees.
• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: LLMs can make statements that differ from what they actually believe.

May combine two claims.

The correct consensus (1,1) stays stable for every c and a when γ > 0, because when every agent holds and states the correct answer there is no visible disagreement to prompt reconsideration and nothing to withhold.

“The correct consensus (1 , 1) stays stable for every c and a when γ > 0 , because when every agent holds and states the correct answer there is no visible disagreement to prompt reconsideration and nothing to withhold”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: An agent reconsiders with a probability proportional to the dissent it sees.
• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: LLMs can make statements that differ from what they actually believe.

May combine two claims.

A pooled Beta-Binomial on agent-rounds leaves interval width nearly unchanged, and coverage of the pooled model falls below the nominal level.

“A pooled Beta-Binomial on agent-rounds leaves interval width nearly unchanged, and coverage of the pooled model falls below the nominal level.”

May combine two claims.

Treating agent-rounds as independent makes the intervals too narrow, and a task-level cluster bootstrap gives much wider intervals.

“Treating them as independent makes the intervals too narrow, and a task-level cluster bootstrap gives much wider intervals.”

May combine two claims.

Having the correct answer in the majority requires k > q/2, and for q ≥ 3 this implies k ≥ 2, so the probability that the majority is correct vanishes at first order, M_q(Y) = O(Y^2).

“Having the correct answer in the majority requires k > q/ 2 , and because for q ≥ 3 this implies k ≥ 2 , the probability that the majority is correct vanishes at first order, M q ( Y ) = ∑ k>q/ 2 w k ( Y ) = O ( Y 2 ) .”

May combine two claims.

For the other three models, public and private answers already matched, so the transparent setting had little effect.

“For the other three models, public and private answers already matched, so the transparent setting had little effect, as predicted.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

Individual reasoning tends to benefit solo agent performance.

“while individual reasoning tends to benefit solo agent performance”

May combine two claims.

As a result, a, rho and r depend on the elicitation, while c is more stable.

“As a result, ˆ a , ˆ ρ and ˆ r depend on the elicitation, while ˆ c is more stable.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

T(1;Y) stays at the constant T(1;0) = c(1-a) + (1-c)(1-ρ(1-r)).

“Meanwhile T (1; Y ) stays at the constant T (1; 0) = c (1 -a ) + (1 -c ) ( 1 -ρ (1 -r ) ) .”

May combine two claims.

In the estimates for each LLM and instruction, r is close to one, while rho varies across settings.

“In the estimates for each LLM and instruction, ˆ r is close to one, while ˆ ρ varies across settings.”

May combine two claims.

In the voter limit q = 1, no absorbing state exists and the recovery time diverges as c → 1.

“In the voter limit q = 1 no absorbing state exists and the recovery time diverges as c → 1 ;”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: An agent reconsiders with a probability proportional to the dissent it sees.
• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: LLMs can make statements that differ from what they actually believe.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The pooled clues favor the stronger candidate for every n_inf.

“The pooled clues favor the stronger candidate for every n inf .”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

On the hidden profile benchmark, the round-0 accuracy p = n_inf/N is below one half except at n_inf = 3.

“On the hidden profile benchmark, the round-0 accuracy p = n inf /N is below one half except at n inf = 3 .”

May combine two claims.

These findings reconcile the conflicting reports and identify when discussion outperforms majority voting.

“These findings reconcile the conflicting reports and identify when discussion outperforms majority voting.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Instructions remedy the first pathway by reducing the withholding rate c.

“Instructions remedy the first pathway by reducing the withholding rate c .”

May combine two claims.

If the second pathway is open, voicing dissent is insufficient, because agents with strong internalization do not change their answers when a minority disagrees with them.

“However, if the second pathway is open, voicing dissent is insufficient, because agents with strong internalization do not change their answers when a minority disagrees with them.”

May combine two claims.

Withholding suppresses visible dissent, removing the triggers needed for correction.

“Withholding suppresses visible dissent, removing the triggers needed for correction.”

May combine two claims.

The model explains two pathways by which an LLM team can arrive at an incorrect consensus: high withholding (agents remain silent) and high internalization with low net correction (dissent is stated but fails to shift the team).

“Our model explains two pathways by which an LLM team can arrive at an incorrect consensus: one is that agents who disagree remain silent (a high withholding rate c ), so the team never hears the dissent it needs to correct itself; the other is that dissent is stated but fails to shift the team, because agents adhere to what they have already stated (a high internalization rate a ) and rarely reach”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The same conformity phenomenon is shown to benefit or harm performance depending on the LLM and task setting.

“The same conformity phenomenon is shown to benefit or harm performance depending on the LLM and task setting (Zhang et al., 2024).”

• cites Zhang et al., 2024Not matched

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

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

The study remains limited to abstracted tasks, short-round discussions, homogeneous agents, fixed communication, and single sessions.

“our study remains limited to abstracted tasks, short-round discussions, homogeneous agents, fixed communication, and single sessions.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

The paper treats the elicited response as the measured counterpart of the private belief and does not claim that it is what an LLM believes.

“We treat this elicited response as the measured counterpart of the private belief and do not claim that it is what an LLM believes (Section 6).”

May combine two claims.

If Λ(c) > 1, the correct minority (in terms of private belief Z_t) grows and otherwise vanishes.

“If Λ( c ) > 1 , the correct minority (in terms of private belief Z t ) grows and otherwise vanishes.”

May combine two claims.

The paper quantifies qualitative patterns of information withholding from conversation logs of LLM teams and identifies a condition under which discussion outperforms voting.

“We quantify these qualitative patterns of information withholding from conversation logs of LLM teams and identify a condition under which discussion outperforms voting.”

May combine two claims.

The condition Λ(c) > 1 directly compares the rate (1-c)γ at which voiced dissent corrects beliefs against the rate c·a at which agents adopt the majority in both statement and private belief, and it is equivalent to (1-c)γ > c·a.

“The condition Λ( c ) > 1 directly compares the rate (1 -c ) γ at which voiced dissent corrects beliefs against the rate c · a at which agents adopt the majority in both statement and private belief, and it is equivalent to (1 -c ) γ > c · a .”

May combine two claims.

If an agent observes only one counterpart, a single correct statement is the majority for whichever agent observes that statement, and no threshold appears.

“If an agent observes only one counterpart, a single correct statement is the majority for whichever agent observes that statement, and no threshold appears (Appendix A.2).”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Internalization measures the agreement of the two answers within a round rather than a sequence of stating an answer and later adopting it.

“Because y i,t and z i,t come from two calls on the same input and the private query does not show the agent its upcoming statement, internalization measures the agreement of the two answers within a round rather than a sequence of stating an answer and later adopting it.”

May combine two claims.

This threshold requires local majority rule with q ≥ 3.

“This threshold requires local majority rule with q ≥ 3 .”

May combine two claims.

A team collapses into an incorrect consensus when its withholding rate lies above its own critical value, and the quantity that decides the outcome is the margin ˆc - c*.

“A team collapses into an incorrect consensus when its withholding rate lies above its own critical value, and the quantity that decides the outcome is therefore the margin ˆ c -c ∗ .”

May combine two claims.

The model reconciles these findings by focusing on the withholding rate: if it remains below c*, teams can recover from incorrect initial majorities; if it exceeds this threshold, recovery is unlikely.

“Our model reconciles these findings by focusing on the withholding rate: if it remains below a critical threshold ( c ∗ ), teams can recover from incorrect initial majorities; if it exceeds this threshold, recovery is unlikely.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The curve p*(c) that separates the two destinations is the phase boundary.

“The curve p ∗ ( c ) that separates the two destinations is the phase boundary (Fig. 1c).”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

The margin ˆc - c* between the estimated withholding rate and the critical value decides whether an LLM-based multi-agent system is on the incorrect-consensus side of the threshold.

“We seek the margin ˆ c -c ∗ between the estimated withholding rate and the critical value, which decides whether an LLM-based multi-agent system is on the incorrect-consensus side of the threshold.”

May combine two claims.

If a → 0, c* → 1, showing that withholding alone without internalization does not lock the team into an incorrect consensus.

“If a → 0 , c ∗ → 1 , showing that withholding alone without internalization does not lock the team into an incorrect consensus.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

u_0(0) = 0 reflects that incorrect agents do not reconsider when they observe no dissent.

“Here u 0 (0) = 0 reflects that incorrect agents do not reconsider when they observe no dissent”

May combine two claims.

MuSiQue still shows a positive gain, because its free-text answers spread the incorrect answers over many strings instead of a single competitor and because disclosed evidence stays visible.

“MuSiQue still shows a positive gain, because its free-text answers spread the incorrect answers over many strings instead of a single competitor (Appendix A.3) and because disclosed evidence stays visible.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

We verified every result against the source data and reviewed all AI-assisted work.

“We verified every result against the source data, reviewed all AI-assisted work, and take responsibility for the final content of this paper, including text, claims, and artifacts produced with the aid of generative AI.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

The synthetic tasks are statistically identical to one another, and the coverage on real data may therefore be lower.

“The synthetic tasks are statistically identical to one another, and the coverage on real data may therefore be lower.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

A tie (k = q/2, possible only for even q) offers no majority to concede to, so the agent states its belief and only the reconsideration factor u_k(z) applies.

“A tie ( k = q/ 2 , possible only for even q ) offers no majority to concede to, so the agent states its belief and only the reconsideration factor u k ( z ) applies.”

May combine two claims.

The withholding rate c and its critical threshold c* fundamentally shape discussion effectiveness and can be modulated via task design and agent instruction.

“First, the withholding rate c and its critical threshold c ∗ fundamentally shape discussion effectiveness and can be modulated via task design and agent instruction.”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: An agent reconsiders with a probability proportional to the dissent it sees.
• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: LLMs can make statements that differ from what they actually believe.

May combine two claims.

The estimates of all four rates and of c* are validated on synthetic logs with known true values; errors are small and intervals cover the true values.

“We validate the estimates of all four rates and of c ∗ on synthetic logs with known true values. The errors are small, and the intervals cover the true values.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

In the manipulation checks, we verify that accuracy at round 0 reproduces the designed value p = n_inf/N, that LLMs select the dominant candidate within their field of view, and that they can count observations.

“In the manipulation checks, we verify that accuracy at round 0 reproduces the designed value p = n inf /N , that LLMs select the dominant candidate within their field of view, and that they can count observations.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

We checked every reference returned by literature search tools.

“We searched the literature with Google Scholar and generative AI tools and checked every reference returned by these search tools.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

In a joint reply the private answer has not yet moved to the majority, so the same round is counted as withholding instead of internalization.

“In a joint reply the private answer has not yet moved to the majority, so the same round is counted as withholding instead of internalization.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

Whether the mathematical model is parsimonious is a question about the list of four constraints alone.

“Whether the mathematical model is parsimonious is therefore a question about the list of four constraints alone.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Every experiment is organized as a Snakemake workflow and the code, configurations, and prompts are provided as an anonymized archive in the supplementary material.

“We organize every experiment as a Snakemake workflow and provide the code, configurations, and prompts as an anonymized archive in the supplementary material.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

During initial manipulation checks, two candidate models were excluded for failing to reproduce designed accuracy p = n_inf/N, failing to count findings reliably, or routing through endpoints with inconsistent backend architectures.

“During initial manipulation checks, two candidate models were excluded for failing to reproduce designed accuracy p = n inf /N , failing to count findings reliably, or routing through endpoints with inconsistent backend architectures.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

We tested and verified the code written with generative AI tools.

“We used generative AI tools to write the code for the experiments and the analysis, and we tested and verified that code.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

The reconsideration rate measures how often a belief changes in the presence of dissent, not how often dissent causes the change.

“The reconsideration rate thus measures how often a belief changes in the presence of dissent, not how often dissent causes the change.”

May combine two claims.

Such recoveries occur when evidence held privately reaches the team, and the current model includes no such recovery path.

“Such recoveries occur when evidence held privately reaches the team, and the current model includes no such recovery path.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The hosted models are versioned proprietary endpoints, so the same identifier may later resolve to a different model version.

“The hosted models are versioned proprietary endpoints, so the same identifier may later resolve to a different model version.”

May combine two claims.

The estimator first identifies the majority by relative majority and then projects the outcomes to binary values; reversing this projection order fails when errors are dispersed and shifts the critical withholding rate.

“The estimator first identifies the majority by relative majority and then projects the outcomes to binary values; reversing this projection order fails when errors are dispersed and shifts the critical withholding rate.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

A public answer that matches neither the agent's own private answer nor the visible majority is off-rule, and we exclude LLMs that give such answers often.

“A public answer that matches neither the agent's own private answer nor the visible majority is off-rule, and we exclude LLMs that give such answers often.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The tasks are designed so that most agents cannot reach the correct answer alone.

“The tasks are designed so that most agents cannot reach the correct answer alone.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Settings whose LLM solved no item before or after discussion (mixtral on MuSiQue) are not drawn in Fig. 3.

“Settings whose LLM solved no item before or after discussion (mixtral on MuSiQue) are not drawn in Fig. 3.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

MedEInst is a differential diagnosis benchmark; each task pairs a typical case with a counterfactual case; in the counterfactual case, one altered finding flips the diagnosis to the correct one.

“MedEInst is a differential diagnosis benchmark. Each task pairs a typical case with a counterfactual case. In the counterfactual case, one altered finding flips the diagnosis to the correct one.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

We treat settings whose interval for c - c* includes zero as undecided and leave them out of any decision based on the sign.

“We therefore treat settings whose interval for c -c ∗ includes zero as undecided and leave them out of any decision based on the sign.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

We exclude the MedEInst run of qwen3.8 because 3.3% of its discussion replies carry no public answer, more than the 2% we allow.

“We exclude the MedEInst run of qwen3.8: 3.3% of its discussion replies carry no public answer, more than the 2% we allow.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

Only informed agents see more findings for the stronger candidate, and the round-0 accuracy is p = n_inf/N for n_inf informed agents.

“Only informed agents therefore see more findings for the stronger candidate, and the round-0 accuracy is p = n inf /N for n inf informed agents.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

In its original form, HiddenBench is a multi-agent hidden profile benchmark; its shared briefing favors an incorrect option; each private clue rules out one incorrect option; only the correct option remains once the team pools all private clues.

“In its original form, HiddenBench is a multi-agent hidden profile benchmark. Its shared briefing favors an incorrect option. Each private clue rules out one incorrect option. Only the correct option remains once the team pools all private clues.”

• cites Li et al., 2026Not matched

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

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

External tasks use the same harness, so differences across tasks do not arise from the harness.

“External tasks use the same harness, so differences across tasks do not arise from the harness.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Asking for the private and the public answer in one reply would halve the calls.

“Asking for the private and the public answer in one reply would halve the calls.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

The three-line format is distinct from unstructured multi-agent debate and isolates opinion conformity and information pooling while tracking all communicated evidence.

“The three-line format is distinct from unstructured multi-agent debate (Du et al., 2024), and it isolates opinion conformity and information pooling while tracking all communicated evidence.”

• cites Du et al., 2024Not matched

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

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

The independent vote is the natural comparison on hidden profile tasks, where partitioned private clues cannot be assembled by repeatedly querying the same agent.

“The independent vote is the natural comparison on hidden profile tasks, where partitioned private clues cannot be assembled by repeatedly querying the same agent.”