# From Diagnosis to Redesign: Using Quantitative Ethnography to Improve Multi-Agent LLM Reasoning

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.22566 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.22566/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Reasoning for agents, planning and code, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 7 of its 21 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 23 Aug 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Reasoning for agents, planning and code](https://mlsanity.com/lr/reasoning-for-agents-planning-and-code/)
- 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, 7 of 7)

- [Qwen2.5 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.15115/) (2024)
- [Improving Factuality and Reasoning in Language Models through Multiagent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14325/) (2023)
- [Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Prompting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.04388/) (2023)
- [Encouraging Divergent Thinking in Large Language Models through Multi-Agent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.19118/) (2023)
- [Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.13657/) (2025)
- [Should we be going MAD? A Look at Multi-Agent Debate Strategies for LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.17371/) (2023)
- [Talk Isn't Always Cheap: Understanding Failure Modes in Multi-Agent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.05396/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Multi-agent large language model (LLM) systems are designed to improve reasoning by decomposing tasks across multiple agents with specialized functions, but the presence of multiple agents does not inherently guarantee coherent reasoning or outputs that align with task objectives. This paper introduces a quantitative ethnographic (QE) approach for diagnosing and redesigning multi-agent LLM systems based on the discourse produced through agent interactions. We test this approach using automated essay scoring as an example context, applying Epistemic Network Analysis (ENA) to model a five-agent multi-agent debate system and examine differences between debates that produced correct versus incorrect scoring decisions. Results show that, in the initial system, correct scoring decisions were characterized by rubric-grounded justification, agreement, and elaboration. Incorrect scoring decisions, in contrast, were characterized by extended proposition-challenge-response exchanges that were less consistently tied to rubric criteria. We then used the findings to revise the agents' prompts. The revised system improved exact scoring accuracy from 27.78% to 40.28% and shifted the discourse of incorrect debates toward the rubric-grounded pattern of correct ones, making the two nearly indistinguishable. Based on these results, we argue that QE can support a diagnostic-to-redesign loop for AI reasoning by tracing how patterns of agent interaction relate to system performance, informing prompt redesign, and evaluating whether those redesigns change both outcomes and interaction patterns.