Analyze-Compose-Execute: A Dynamic Dialogue Framework for Multi-Agent Debate
Wenyuan Gu, Haowen Wang, Jiale Han, Xiang Li, Zhixuan Wu, Hongru Xiao, Bo Cheng
Abstract
Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) is an emerging paradigm that leverages the reasoning abilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) by encouraging them to collaboratively solve problems through human-like discussions. However, current MAD methods typically constrain agents to follow fixed discussion pipelines, repeatedly applying the same discussion act for a predetermined number of rounds, which limits their effectiveness and adaptability in complex and diverse tasks. To address this limitation, we propose Analyze–Compose–Execute (ACE), a novel debate framework in which agents dynamically execute the discussion actions according to the dialogue context. By analyzing the current responses of agents, ACE selects appropriate acts from a predefined Atomic Discussion Acts Library (ADAL), which are composed into a discussion action to be executed in the next round, to enable truly dynamic debate. We conduct extensive experiments on the challenging benchmark Big-Bench Hard (BBH) benchmark. ACE achieves state-of-the- art results on 17 out of 23 tasks, with an average performance gain of 8.5% across all tasks, demonstrating the effectiveness and robustness of our approach.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 363d80db-ceb4-4360-829d-384d427bdc14Builds on18
- Language Models are Few-Shot LearnersTom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah et al.NeurIPS 2020 · 64,255 citations
- Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language ModelsJason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 22,562 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
- ChatEval: Towards Better LLM-based Evaluators through Multi-Agent DebateChi-Min Chan, Weize Chen, Yusheng Su, Jianxuan Yu et al.ICLR 2024 · 871 citations
- AgentVerse: Facilitating Multi-Agent Collaboration and Exploring Emergent BehaviorsWeize Chen, Yusheng Su, Jingwei Zuo, Cheng Yang et al.ICLR 2024 · 594 citations
Related papers
- Debate or Vote: Which Yields Better Decisions in Multi-Agent Large Language Models?Hyeong Kyu Choi, Xiaojin Zhu, Sharon LiNeurIPS 2025 · 93 citations
- MAD-Logic: Multi-Agent Debate Enhances Symbolic Translation and ReasoningHaocheng Yang, Fengxiang Cheng, Tianjun Yao, Mengyue Yang et al.ICLR 2026
- iMAD: Intelligent Multi-Agent Debate for Efficient and Accurate LLM InferenceWei Fan, JinYi Yoon, Bo JiAAAI 2026 · 5 citations
- Should we be going MAD? A Look at Multi-Agent Debate Strategies for LLMsAndries P. Smit, Nathan Grinsztajn, Paul Duckworth, Thomas D. Barrett et al.ICML 2024 · 82 citations
- Breaking Mental Set to Improve Reasoning through Diverse Multi-Agent DebateYexiang Liu, Jie Cao, Zekun Li, Ran He et al.ICLR 2025
