# Auditing Pairwise Equivalence Judgments: Self-Critique Effects and Diversity Measurement in Multi-Agent Hypothesis Generation

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.04133 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.04133/

## 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 21 of its 28 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 2 Oct 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, 21 of 21)

- [Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1908.10084/) (2019)
- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [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)
- [Improving Factuality and Reasoning in Language Models through Multiagent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14325/) (2023)
- [FActScore: Fine-grained Atomic Evaluation of Factual Precision in Long Form Text Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14251/) (2023)
- [Large Language Models Cannot Self-Correct Reasoning Yet](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.01798/) (2023)
- [ChemCrow: Augmenting large-language models with chemistry tools](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.05376/) (2023)
- [Enabling Large Language Models to Generate Text with Citations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14627/) (2023)
- [Can LLMs Generate Novel Research Ideas? A Large-Scale Human Study with 100+ NLP Researchers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.04109/) (2024)
- [Judging the Judges: A Systematic Study of Position Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.07791/) (2024)
- [When Can LLMs Actually Correct Their Own Mistakes? A Critical Survey of Self-Correction of LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.01297/) (2024)
- [ScienceAgentBench: Toward Rigorous Assessment of Language Agents for Data-Driven Scientific Discovery](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.05080/) (2024)
- [LAB-Bench: Measuring Capabilities of Language Models for Biology Research](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.10362/) (2024)
- [Should we be going MAD? A Look at Multi-Agent Debate Strategies for LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.17371/) (2023)
- [Non-Determinism of "Deterministic" LLM Settings](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.04667/) (2024)
- [LLM Comparative Assessment: Zero-shot NLG Evaluation through Pairwise Comparisons using Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.07889/) (2023)
- [Many Heads Are Better Than One: Improved Scientific Idea Generation by A LLM-Based Multi-Agent System](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.09403/) (2024)
- [Scaling Test-time Compute for LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.12928/) (2025)
- [Know Thy Judge: On the Robustness Meta-Evaluation of LLM Safety Judges](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.04474/) (2025)
- [BioVerge: A Comprehensive Benchmark and Study of Self-Evaluating Agents for Biomedical Hypothesis Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.08866/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Multi-agent systems built on large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to scientific discovery and hypothesis generation. Both the effect of refinement and the diversity of the delivered set are hard to interpret before experimental ground truth exists, and both are typically reported by deciding whether pairs of generated hypotheses describe the same underlying mechanism. We study two evaluation questions that rest on this pairwise equivalence judgment: (1) how much self-critique changes delivered hypotheses beyond run-to-run variability, and (2) how the equivalence rule used to group hypotheses affects measured diversity. Across four proprietary instances, we hold opening hypotheses fixed, rerun the downstream workflow with 0, 1, and 5 critique rounds, and score matched hypothesis pairs with an LLM-as-a-judge. Relative to matched same-depth reruns, moving from 0 to 1 round produces 34.5 percentage points (pp) of additional mechanism-level divergence, whereas 1 to 5 rounds adds 1.3 pp. We then compare three equivalence rules: term frequency--inverse document frequency (TF--IDF) similarity, dense embeddings, and the same LLM-as-a-judge. We construct controlled hypothesis pairs that either preserve the causal explanation through wording or biological-terminology changes, or replace one component of the causal chain while holding the rest fixed. All three rules are invariant to meaning-preserving edits, but when the initiating event is replaced, the LLM-as-a-judge identifies 83% of valid pairs as different mechanisms, versus 0% for TF--IDF and 8% for embeddings; varying only the rubric that defines same mechanism moves this figure from 38% to 96%. Together, these results show that pairwise equivalence judgments are a measurement choice: how mechanism equivalence is defined affects both the estimated effect of self-critique and the measured diversity of generated hypotheses.