Multi-Agent Debate with Memory Masking
Hongduan Tian, Xiao Feng, Ziyuan Zhao, Xiangyu Zhu, Rolan Yan, Bo Han
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) have recently demonstrated impressive capabilities in reasoning tasks. Currently, mainstream LLM reasoning frameworks predominantly focus on scaling up inference-time sampling to enhance performance. In particular, among all LLM reasoning frameworks, multi-agent debate (MAD), which employs multiple LLMs as agents to perform reasoning in the way of multi-round debate, has emerged as a powerful reasoning paradigm since it allows agents to access previous memories to alleviate fallacious content and refine their reasoning iteratively in each debate round. However, although MAD significantly improves the reasoning capabilities of LLMs, in this paper, we observe that there remain erroneous memories, and LLM agents are vulnerable to these erroneous memories. To explore this phenomenon, we provide a theoretical insight that the performance of MAD is highly dependent on the quality of memories derived from the previous debate, indicating that the existence of erroneous memories poses a threat to the performance of MAD. To address this problem, we introduce a simple yet effective multi-agent debate framework, multi-agent debate with memory masking (MAD-M 2 ), to improve the robustness of MAD by allowing LLM agents to mask erroneous memories from the previous debate round at the beginning of each debate round. In this way, MAD-M 2 can polish the contextual information before each debate round by preserving informative and meaningful memories while discarding the erroneous memories. Extensive experiments on mainstream math reasoning and language understanding benchmarks demonstrate that MAD-M 2 can identify the erroneous memories and achieve better performance in reasoning than MAD. The code of MAD-M 2 is available at: https://github.com/tmlr-group/MAD-MM .
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 70ec0db6-d9d3-4e76-b3b8-dce720b833cdBuilds on25
- Language Models are Few-Shot LearnersTom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah et al.NeurIPS 2020 · 64,255 citations
- Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackLong Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 24,707 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
- Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP TasksPatrick Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni et al.NeurIPS 2020 · 19,162 citations
- Large Language Models are Zero-Shot ReasonersTakeshi Kojima, Shixiang Shane Gu, Machel Reid, Yutaka Matsuo et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 8,168 citations
Related papers
- MAD-Logic: Multi-Agent Debate Enhances Symbolic Translation and ReasoningHaocheng Yang, Fengxiang Cheng, Tianjun Yao, Mengyue Yang et al.ICLR 2026
- Breaking Mental Set to Improve Reasoning through Diverse Multi-Agent DebateYexiang Liu, Jie Cao, Zekun Li, Ran He et al.ICLR 2025
- Debate or Vote: Which Yields Better Decisions in Multi-Agent Large Language Models?Hyeong Kyu Choi, Xiaojin Zhu, Sharon LiNeurIPS 2025 · 93 citations
- RedDebate: Safer Responses Through Multi-Agent Red Teaming DebatesAli Asad, Stephen Obadinma, Radin Shayanfar, Xiaodan ZhuICML 2026 · 7 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
