# Candidate supply and answer selection shape the value of LLM judging in multi-agent systems

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.25937 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.25937/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 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 50 of its 62 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 26 Aug 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 50)

- [Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.14168/) (2021)
- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.18290/) (2023)
- [Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.11171/) (2022)
- [Let's Verify Step by Step](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.20050/) (2023)
- [Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.08073/) (2022)
- [GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.12022/) (2023)
- [G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.16634/) (2023)
- [AutoGen: Enabling Next-Gen LLM Applications via Multi-Agent Conversation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.08155/) (2023)
- [Scaling LLM Test-Time Compute Optimally can be More Effective than Scaling Model Parameters](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.03314/) (2024)
- [MMLU-Pro: A More Robust and Challenging Multi-Task Language Understanding Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.01574/) (2024)
- [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)
- [Competition-Level Code Generation with AlphaCode](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.07814/) (2022)
- [Large Language Models are not Fair Evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.17926/) (2023)
- [Large Language Monkeys: Scaling Inference Compute with Repeated Sampling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21787/) (2024)
- [Math-Shepherd: Verify and Reinforce LLMs Step-by-step without Human Annotations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.08935/) (2023)
- [ChatDev: Communicative Agents for Software Development](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.07924/) (2023)
- [Length-Controlled AlpacaEval: A Simple Way to Debias Automatic Evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.04475/) (2024)
- [Large Language Model based Multi-Agents: A Survey of Progress and Challenges](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.01680/) (2024)
- [LLM Evaluators Recognize and Favor Their Own Generations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.13076/) (2024)
- [RLAIF vs. RLHF: Scaling Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback with AI Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.00267/) (2023)
- [Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.13657/) (2025)
- [AgentVerse: Facilitating Multi-Agent Collaboration and Exploring Emergent Behaviors](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.10848/) (2023)
- [LLM-Blender: Ensembling Large Language Models with Pairwise Ranking and Generative Fusion](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.02561/) (2023)
- [Humanity's Last Exam](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.14249/) (2025)
- [Prometheus 2: An Open Source Language Model Specialized in Evaluating Other Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.01535/) (2024)
- [Cognitive Architectures for Language Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.02427/) (2023)
- [AI safety via debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1805.00899/) (2018)
- [Replacing Judges with Juries: Evaluating LLM Generations with a Panel of Diverse Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.18796/) (2024)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [From Discovery to Decision: Finite-Budget Recoverability in LLM Voting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.01014/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Multi-agent systems (MAS) sometimes already have the potential to answer correctly, but still report a wrong answer. Explaining this outcome is difficult because generation, communication and final answer-selection rules usually change simultaneously. We conceptualize multi-agent reasoning as an evolutionary pipeline of candidate generation, peer communication and terminal selection, wherein consensus without quality control can exhibit patterns of memetic drift. We study two questions: (1) when an LLM judge provides effective selection pressure by supplying a signal of answer correctness for candidates generated in a multi-agent system, and (2) when using that signal improves the reported answer. To map judge reliability, we analysed 15,336 questions from MMLU-Pro, GPQA, MedXpertQA and MuSR, with Humanity's Last Exam analysed separately. To test these rules, we replayed 81,390 fixed candidate pools drawn from 16,278 questions across five benchmarks. We report three findings. (1) A correct answer is often already present among the generated candidates, but the system can still converge on and report a wrong answer. (2) Judge reliability is not a fixed trait of the model, but varies with the task, the generator and how rare the correct answer is. (3) Combining answer frequency with the judge's evaluation changed only the final answer-selection rule and raised accuracy from 63.82% to 70.82-70.95%, primarily by rescuing correct answers that were outnumbered by popular errors. In the systems studied here, the value of generating more candidates depends on whether those extra samples make correct answers present, frequent or recognisable. By isolating generation, recognition and selection, these findings establish a diagnostic basis for designing multi-agent architectures that protect generated correct answers from being lost.