# What Does Multi-Agent LLM Debate Actually Change? A Layered Analysis of Disagreement and Answer Quality

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.08016 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.08016/

## 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 46 of its 90 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 7 Sep 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 46)

- [Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Know](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2207.05221/) (2022)
- [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)
- [Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.13548/) (2023)
- [Encouraging Divergent Thinking in Large Language Models through Multi-Agent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.19118/) (2023)
- [Can LLMs Express Their Uncertainty? An Empirical Evaluation of Confidence Elicitation in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.13063/) (2023)
- [Discovering Language Model Behaviors with Model-Written Evaluations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.09251/) (2022)
- [Just Ask for Calibration: Strategies for Eliciting Calibrated Confidence Scores from Language Models Fine-Tuned with Human Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14975/) (2023)
- [Whose Opinions Do Language Models Reflect?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17548/) (2023)
- [ChatEval: Towards Better LLM-based Evaluators through Multi-Agent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.07201/) (2023)
- [Measuring Faithfulness in Chain-of-Thought Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.13702/) (2023)
- [Mixture-of-Agents Enhances Large Language Model Capabilities](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.04692/) (2024)
- [Towards Measuring the Representation of Subjective Global Opinions in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.16388/) (2023)
- [Multi-Agent Collaboration Mechanisms: A Survey of LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.06322/) (2025)
- [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)
- [Debating with More Persuasive LLMs Leads to More Truthful Answers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.06782/) (2024)
- [LLMs instead of Human Judges? A Large Scale Empirical Study across 20 NLP Evaluation Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.18403/) (2024)
- [More Agents Is All You Need](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.05120/) (2024)
- [Rethinking the Bounds of LLM Reasoning: Are Multi-Agent Discussions the Key?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.18272/) (2024)
- [Simulating Opinion Dynamics with Networks of LLM-based Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.09618/) (2023)
- [Emergent social conventions and collective bias in LLM populations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.08948/) (2024)
- [Should we be going MAD? A Look at Multi-Agent Debate Strategies for LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.17371/) (2023)
- [Looking Inward: Language Models Can Learn About Themselves by Introspection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.13787/) (2024)
- [The Earth is Flat because...: Investigating LLMs' Belief towards Misinformation via Persuasive Conversation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.09085/) (2023)
- [SycEval: Evaluating LLM Sycophancy](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.08177/) (2025)
- [On scalable oversight with weak LLMs judging strong LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.04622/) (2024)
- [Examining Inter-Consistency of Large Language Models Collaboration: An In-depth Analysis via Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.11595/) (2023)
- [Can ChatGPT Defend its Belief in Truth? Evaluating LLM Reasoning via Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.13160/) (2023)
- [Talk Isn't Always Cheap: Understanding Failure Modes in Multi-Agent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.05396/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Multi-agent debate, in which several LLMs exchange arguments before producing an answer, raises a basic question: does expressed disagreement reflect changes in the members' own positions? No single signal can settle this question, so we organize the analysis around five questions: (A) does the debater say it disagrees; (B) does its reply text actually argue; (C) does its own position change after each debate turn; (D) how much, quantitatively, does the position change; and (E) how do members' final positions compare with their initial ones? We evaluate two- and three-member committees on 50 curated opinion questions from GlobalOpinionQA, using same-model, same-family, and mixed-family configurations with friendly, neutral, and hostile instructions assigned at each turn. (A) Tone changes reported agreement: the share of replies reporting strong agreement is 70.7-96.3% under friendly instructions, compared with 9.5-19.3% under hostile ones, varying with model choice. (B) Self-reports broadly align with text judgments, but consistency varies by agreement level and model choice. (C) Position changes depend on the interaction: after a peer's leaning-disagree reply, members reporting strong agreement switch options more often than those reporting leaning disagreement. (D) For open-weight members, the probability of the option a member already holds stays near saturation, even after a peer's pushback, while endorsement of its earlier position text drops after a peer's argument relative to neutral filler, more for Qwen3.8-27B than Inkling. (E) The selected option is unchanged from members' initial to final positions in over 90% of comparisons in every configuration. Taken together, expressed disagreement need not translate into position revision, either within individual exchanges or over a complete debate.