Who Are They to Each Other? Multi-Agent Reasoning for Speaker Relationship Inference

Inferring speaker relationships from spoken conversations is an important step towards socially aware speech understanding. However, this task remains underexplored, and supervised modeling is costly to train and scale. At the same time, existing inference-time LLM approaches provide limited structure for handling subtle, distributed, and multimodal relational cues that may support multiple plausible interpretations. To address these limitations, we introduce a training-free multi-agent reasoning framework that organizes inference through structured interaction among LLM agents, allowing relationship judgments to be proposed, challenged, and adjudicated without task-specific training. We instantiate this framework with two complementary designs. We propose Multi-Role Multi-Agent Debate as a task-specific adaptation of standard multi-agent debate for speaker relationship inference, assigning agents complementary roles or social-theory-grounded perspectives rather than a single undifferentiated viewpoint. In contrast, we introduce Multi-Agent Compete, a competition-based protocol that compares agent judgments through pairwise adjudication, eliminates weaker candidates, and retains the most defensible one. We evaluate these methods on the Seamless Interaction dataset across different modality settings, covering both binary classification and fine-grained relationship-detail prediction. Results suggest that they improve over zero-shot and existing multi-agent baselines in most cases. Human evaluation further suggests that this task is challenging even for people. LLM methods can sometimes outperform human annotators in text-included settings but are less competitive in the audio setting. Together, these findings suggest that relationship inference benefits from structured inference-time interaction among agents, while acoustic cues are not yet fully captured by current models.