ACL Findings2026
Free-MAD: Consensus-Free Multi-Agent Debate
Yu Cui, Hang Fu, Haibin Zhang, Licheng Wang, Cong Zuo
Abstract
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 decided 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, causing error propagation. Third, majority voting introduces randomness and unfairness in the decision-making phase, and can degrade the reasoning performance. To address these issues, we propose FREE-MAD, an alternative and novel MAD framework that eliminates the need for consensus among agents. FREE-MAD introduces a novel score-based decision mechanism that evaluates the entire debate trajectory rather than relying on the last round only. This mechanism tracks how each agent's reasoning evolves, enabling more accurate and fair outcomes. In addition, FREE-MAD reconstructs the debate phase by introducing anticonformity, a mechanism that enables agents to mitigate excessive influence from the majority. Experiments on eight benchmark datasets demonstrate that FREE-MAD significantly improves reasoning performance while requiring only a single-round debate and thus reducing token costs. We also show that compared to existing MAD approaches, FREE-MAD exhibits improved robustness in real-world attack scenarios.
Ask Lune
Ask anything. The answer quotes the paper.
Lune reads all of it and the papers around it, then shows you the passages behind every answer.
Builds on27
- Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language ModelsJason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 22,562 citations
- Measuring Massive Multitask Language UnderstandingDan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Steven Basart, Andy Zou et al.ICLR 2021 · 7,905 citations
- Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-FeedbackAman Madaan, Niket Tandon, Prakhar Gupta, Skyler Hallinan et al.NeurIPS 2023 · 4,972 citations
- Let's Verify Step by StepHunter Lightman, Vineet Kosaraju, Yuri Burda, Harrison Edwards et al.ICLR 2024 · 3,045 citations
- Improving Factuality and Reasoning in Language Models through Multiagent DebateYilun Du, Shuang Li, Antonio Torralba, Joshua B. Tenenbaum et al.ICML 2024 · 1,562 citations
Related papers
- Multi-Agent Debate with Memory MaskingHongduan Tian, Xiao Feng, Ziyuan Zhao, Xiangyu Zhu et al.ICLR 2026 · 7 citations
- Debate or Vote: Which Yields Better Decisions in Multi-Agent Large Language Models?Hyeong Kyu Choi, Xiaojin Zhu, Sharon LiNeurIPS 2025 · 93 citations
- iMAD: Intelligent Multi-Agent Debate for Efficient and Accurate LLM InferenceWei Fan, JinYi Yoon, Bo JiAAAI 2026 · 5 citations
- Demystifying Multi-Agent Debate: The Role of Confidence and DiversityXiaochen Zhu, Caiqi Zhang, Yizhou Chi, Tom Stafford et al.ACL Findings 2026 · 2 citations
- Breaking Mental Set to Improve Reasoning through Diverse Multi-Agent DebateYexiang Liu, Jie Cao, Zekun Li, Ran He et al.ICLR 2025
