# When Helping Hurts and How to Fix It: Multi-Agent Debate for Data Cleaning

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.02866 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.02866/

## 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 41 of its 55 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 1 Jun 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, 30 of 41)

- [Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.02155/) (2022)
- [Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.11171/) (2022)
- [Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.11366/) (2023)
- [Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17651/) (2023)
- [Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.08073/) (2022)
- [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)
- [Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.13548/) (2023)
- [Large Language Models Cannot Self-Correct Reasoning Yet](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.01798/) (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)
- [Scalable agent alignment via reward modeling: a research direction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1811.07871/) (2018)
- [AI safety via debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1805.00899/) (2018)
- [Multi-Agent Collaboration: Harnessing the Power of Intelligent LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.03314/) (2023)
- [ReConcile: Round-Table Conference Improves Reasoning via Consensus among Diverse LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.13007/) (2023)
- [Debating with More Persuasive LLMs Leads to More Truthful Answers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.06782/) (2024)
- [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)
- [Measuring Progress on Scalable Oversight for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.03540/) (2022)
- [Exploring Collaboration Mechanisms for LLM Agents: A Social Psychology View](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.02124/) (2023)
- [Simple synthetic data reduces sycophancy in large language models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.03958/) (2023)
- [Can Foundation Models Wrangle Your Data?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.09911/) (2022)
- [Large Language Models(LLMs) on Tabular Data: Prediction, Generation, and Understanding -- A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.17944/) (2024)
- [Rethinking the Bounds of LLM Reasoning: Are Multi-Agent Discussions the Key?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.18272/) (2024)
- [Deep Entity Matching with Pre-Trained Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.00584/) (2020)
- [Data Collection and Quality Challenges in Deep Learning: A Data-Centric AI Perspective](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2112.06409/) (2021)
- [HoloClean: Holistic Data Repairs with Probabilistic Inference](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1702.00820/) (2017)
- [SWE-Debate: Competitive Multi-Agent Debate for Software Issue Resolution](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.23348/) (2025)
- [Stop Overvaluing Multi-Agent Debate -- We Must Rethink Evaluation and Embrace Model Heterogeneity](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.08788/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

When does multi-agent debate help data cleaning, and when does it hurt? Across three benchmarks, four model families, and over 6,000 task-condition pairs, we find debate's effect reverses sign: it degrades generation across all four models (-1.6 to -15.5pp) through critique-induced confusion (CIC), hallucinated Critic feedback that the Generator accepts uncritically, yet improves error detection (+27.4pp F1, d=1.0). We derive a debate benefit condition: debate helps when the probability of rescuing a wrong output (Critic verification odds weighted by fixability) exceeds the probability of destroying a correct one. A factorial experiment proves adversarial separation is essential: self-verification with identical tools fails, while a separate Critic with code-execution grounding and evidence-gated generation produces the first debate configuration to significantly exceed single-agent on a generative task (+5.3pp, p<0.05). The condition correctly predicts all nine task types and generalizes with zero false positives across 19 published comparisons in seven domains.