# When Disagreements Elicit Robustness: Investigating Self-Repair Capabilities under LLM Multi-Agent Disagreements

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.15153 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.15153/

## Key facts

- Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Social simulation and multi-agent debate, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 32 of its 46 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 21 Feb 2025.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Social simulation and multi-agent debate](https://mlsanity.com/agents/social-simulation-and-multi-agent-debate/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 32)

- [Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.03374/) (2021)
- [Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Tools](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.04761/) (2023)
- [Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behavior](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.03442/) (2023)
- [Locating and Editing Factual Associations in GPT](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2202.05262/) (2022)
- [MetaGPT: Meta Programming for A Multi-Agent Collaborative Framework](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.00352/) (2023)
- [CAMEL: Communicative Agents for "Mind" Exploration of Large Language Model Society](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17760/) (2023)
- [GAIA: a benchmark for General AI Assistants](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.12983/) (2023)
- [ChatDev: Communicative Agents for Software Development](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.07924/) (2023)
- [Large Language Model based Multi-Agents: A Survey of Progress and Challenges](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.01680/) (2024)
- [Fast Model Editing at Scale](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.11309/) (2021)
- [CodeBLEU: a Method for Automatic Evaluation of Code Synthesis](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.10297/) (2020)
- [Multi-Agent Collaboration Mechanisms: A Survey of LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.06322/) (2025)
- [Zero-Shot Relation Extraction via Reading Comprehension](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.04115/) (2017)
- [MedAgents: Large Language Models as Collaborators for Zero-shot Medical Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.10537/) (2023)
- [MQuAKE: Assessing Knowledge Editing in Language Models via Multi-Hop Questions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14795/) (2023)
- [Can We Edit Factual Knowledge by In-Context Learning?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.12740/) (2023)
- [Unleashing the Emergent Cognitive Synergy in Large Language Models: A Task-Solving Agent through Multi-Persona Self-Collaboration](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.05300/) (2023)
- [Exploring Collaboration Mechanisms for LLM Agents: A Social Psychology View](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.02124/) (2023)
- [MetaTool Benchmark for Large Language Models: Deciding Whether to Use Tools and Which to Use](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.03128/) (2023)
- [A Comprehensive Study of Knowledge Editing for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.01286/) (2024)
- [Agent Smith: A Single Image Can Jailbreak One Million Multimodal LLM Agents Exponentially Fast](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.08567/) (2024)
- [Theory of Mind for Multi-Agent Collaboration via Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.10701/) (2023)
- [Scalable Multi-Robot Collaboration with Large Language Models: Centralized or Decentralized Systems?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.15943/) (2023)
- [Examining Inter-Consistency of Large Language Models Collaboration: An In-depth Analysis via Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.11595/) (2023)
- [Flooding Spread of Manipulated Knowledge in LLM-Based Multi-Agent Communities](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.07791/) (2024)
- [LLM-Coordination: Evaluating and Analyzing Multi-agent Coordination Abilities in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.03903/) (2023)
- [GenSim: A General Social Simulation Platform with Large Language Model based Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.04360/) (2024)
- [MAIN-RAG: Multi-Agent Filtering Retrieval-Augmented Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.00332/) (2024)
- [Deciphering Digital Detectives: Understanding LLM Behaviors and Capabilities in Multi-Agent Mystery Games](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.00746/) (2023)
- [Towards Collaborative Intelligence: Propagating Intentions and Reasoning for Multi-Agent Coordination with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.12532/) (2024)

## Built on by (most cited first, 3 of 3)

- [Thinking in a Crowd: How Auxiliary Information Shapes LLM Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.18163/) (2025)
- [Heterogeneous Debate Engine: Identity-Grounded Cognitive Architecture for Resilient LLM-Based Ethical Tutoring](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.27404/) (2026)
- [Reasoning or Rambling? Exploring the Effect of Thinking on Agent Persuasion](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.21054/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) have upgraded them from sophisticated text generators to autonomous agents capable of cooperation and tool use in multi-agent systems (MAS). However, it remains unclear how disagreements shape collective decision-making. In this paper, we revisit the role of disagreement and argue that general, partially overlapping disagreements prevent premature consensus and expand the explored solution space, while disagreements on task-critical steps can derail collaboration depending on the topology of solution paths. We investigate two collaborative settings with distinct path structures: collaborative reasoning (CounterFact, MQuAKE-cf), which typically follows a single evidential chain, whereas collaborative programming (HumanEval, GAIA) often adopts multiple valid implementations. Disagreements are instantiated as general heterogeneity among agents and as task-critical counterfactual knowledge edits injected into context or parameters. Experiments reveal that general disagreements consistently improve success by encouraging complementary exploration. By contrast, task-critical disagreements substantially reduce success on single-path reasoning, yet have a limited impact on programming, where agents can choose alternative solutions. Trace analyses show that MAS frequently bypasses the edited facts in programming but rarely does so in reasoning, revealing an emergent self-repair capability that depends on solution-path rather than scale alone. Our code is available at https://github.com/wbw625/MultiAgentRobustness.