When Debate Helps: Proposal Supply and Verification-Aware Readout in Multi-Agent Reasoning

arXiv:2610.04686v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Multi-agent debate can improve reasoning, yet often fails to beat simple majority voting. We argue that successful debate requires two distinct mechanisms: proposal supply must surface a correct answer, and readout must identify that answer when voting misses it. We formalize the first requirement through recoverable headroom, which measures cases where a correct proposal is available but the majority answer is wrong. For the second, we develop Latent Verification Debate (LVD), an accounting model in which candidate proposals receive answer-specific verification evidence before final generation. Controlled fixed-proposal interventions estimate this latent effect in equivalent peer-support units and show that correct evidence changes answer probabilities and generated decisions while proposal supply remains fixed. To improve proposal supply, we construct societies from neural-thicket agents using labeled and label-free coverage objectives. Across two backbones and matched-budget reasoning benchmarks, coverage-selected societies increase complementary proposal supply and improve aggregate accuracy in repeated stochastic evaluations. Round-level controls further show that interaction provides gains beyond applying the same finalizer directly to the initial proposals. These results identify proposal coverage and truth-sensitive evidence use as complementary conditions for debate to outperform voting. Code is available at https://github.com/Wang-ML-Lab/when-debate-helps.

Related

• PEAR: Permutation-Equivariant Adaptive Routing Multi-Agent Debate
• When and Why Does Multi-Agent Debate Fail and Does It Really Underperform?
• Contestable Multi-Agent Debate with Arena-based Argumentative Computation for Multimedia Verification

Source: arXiv cs.LG | 2026-10-06