Latent Agents: A Post-Training Procedure for Internalized Multi-Agent Debate
John Seon Keun Yi, Aaron Mueller, Dokyun Lee
Abstract
Multi-agent debate has been shown to improve reasoning in large language models (LLMs). However, it is compute-intensive, requiring generation of long transcripts before answering questions. To address this inefficiency, we develop a framework that distills multi-agent debate into a single LLM through a two-stage fine-tuning pipeline combining debate structure learning with internalization via dynamic reward scheduling and length clipping. Across multiple models and benchmarks, our internalized models match or exceed explicit multi-agent debate performance using up to 93% fewer tokens. We then investigate the mechanistic basis of this capability through activation steering, finding that internalization creates agent-specific subspaces: interpretable directions in activation space corresponding to different agent perspectives. We further demonstrate a practical application: by instilling malicious agents into the LLM through internalized debate, then applying negative steering to suppress them, we show that distillation makes harmful behaviors easier to localize and control with smaller reductions in general performance compared to steering base models. Our findings offer a new perspective for understanding multi-agent capabilities in distilled models and provide practical guidelines for controlling internalized reasoning behaviors. Code available at https://github.com/johnsk95/latent_agents
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 f68829b2-ad36-4ebd-9bb8-625139d6ecf7Builds on13
- 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
- Refusal in Language Models Is Mediated by a Single DirectionAndy Arditi, Oscar Obeso, Aaquib Syed, Daniel Paleka et al.NeurIPS 2024 · 1,166 citations
- Encouraging Divergent Thinking in Large Language Models through Multi-Agent DebateTian Liang, Zhiwei He, Wenxiang Jiao, Xing Wang et al.EMNLP 2024 · 177 citations
Related papers
- iMAD: Intelligent Multi-Agent Debate for Efficient and Accurate LLM InferenceWei Fan, JinYi Yoon, Bo JiAAAI 2026 · 5 citations
- 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
- Analyze-Compose-Execute: A Dynamic Dialogue Framework for Multi-Agent DebateWenyuan Gu, Haowen Wang, Jiale Han, Xiang Li et al.AAAI 2026
- Multi-Agent Debate with Memory MaskingHongduan Tian, Xiao Feng, Ziyuan Zhao, Xiangyu Zhu et al.ICLR 2026 · 7 citations
