# The impact of multi-agent debate protocols on debate quality: a controlled case study

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.28813 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.28813/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (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 28 of its 30 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 28 Mar 2026.

## 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, 28 of 28)

- [Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.11366/) (2023)
- [AutoGen: Enabling Next-Gen LLM Applications via Multi-Agent Conversation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.08155/) (2023)
- [MetaGPT: Meta Programming for A Multi-Agent Collaborative Framework](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.00352/) (2023)
- [Improving Factuality and Reasoning in Language Models through Multiagent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14325/) (2023)
- [CAMEL: Communicative Agents for "Mind" Exploration of Large Language Model Society](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17760/) (2023)
- [Encouraging Divergent Thinking in Large Language Models through Multi-Agent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.19118/) (2023)
- [ChatEval: Towards Better LLM-based Evaluators through Multi-Agent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.07201/) (2023)
- [AFlow: Automating Agentic Workflow Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.10762/) (2024)
- [A Dynamic LLM-Powered Agent Network for Task-Oriented Agent Collaboration](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.02170/) (2023)
- [Survey on Evaluation of LLM-based Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.16416/) (2025)
- [Multi-agent Architecture Search via Agentic Supernet](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.04180/) (2025)
- [Should we be going MAD? A Look at Multi-Agent Debate Strategies for LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.17371/) (2023)
- [Improving Multi-Agent Debate with Sparse Communication Topology](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.11776/) (2024)
- [Debate or Vote: Which Yields Better Decisions in Multi-Agent Large Language Models?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.17536/) (2025)
- [SWE-Debate: Competitive Multi-Agent Debate for Software Issue Resolution](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.23348/) (2025)
- [Let Models Speak Ciphers: Multiagent Debate through Embeddings](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06272/) (2023)
- [From Debate to Equilibrium: Belief-Driven Multi-Agent LLM Reasoning via Bayesian Nash Equilibrium](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.08292/) (2025)
- [Demystifying Multi-Agent Debate: The Role of Confidence and Diversity](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.19921/) (2026)
- [Literature Review Of Multi-Agent Debate For Problem-Solving](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.00066/) (2025)
- [iMAD: Intelligent Multi-Agent Debate for Efficient and Accurate LLM Inference](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.11306/) (2025)
- [Debating Truth: Debate-driven Claim Verification with Multiple Large Language Model Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.19090/) (2025)
- [Dynamic Role Assignment for Multi-Agent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.17152/) (2026)
- [Efficient Leave-one-out Approximation in LLM Multi-agent Debate Based on Introspection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.22192/) (2025)
- [Context Learning for Multi-Agent Discussion](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.02350/) (2026)
- [Breaking the Martingale Curse: Multi-Agent Debate via Asymmetric Cognitive Potential Energy](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.06801/) (2026)
- [Learning to Negotiate: Multi-Agent Deliberation for Collective Value Alignment in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.10476/) (2026)
- [Unleashing Diverse Thinking Modes in LLMs through Multi-Agent Collaboration](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.16645/) (2025)
- [Knowledge Divergence and the Value of Debate for Scalable Oversight](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.05293/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

In multi-agent debate (MAD) systems, performance gains are often reported; however, because the debate protocol (e.g., number of agents, rounds, and aggregation rule) is typically held fixed while model-related factors vary, it is difficult to disentangle protocol effects from model effects. To isolate these effects, we compare three main protocols, Within-Round (WR; agents see only current-round contributions), Cross-Round (CR; full prior-round context), and novel Rank-Adaptive Cross-Round (RA-CR; dynamically reorders agents and silences one per round via an external judge model), against a No-Interaction baseline (NI; independent responses without peer visibility). In a controlled macroeconomic case study (20 diverse events, five random seeds, matched prompts/decoding), RA-CR achieves faster convergence than CR, WR shows higher peer-referencing, and NI maximizes Argument Diversity (unaffected across the main protocols). These results reveal a trade-off between interaction (peer-referencing rate) and convergence (consensus formation), confirming protocol design matters. When consensus is prioritized, RA-CR outperforms the others.