# Beyond Answer Sharing: TrueMAD for Targeted Peer Engagement in Multi-Agent Debate

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.18240 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.18240/

## 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 27 of its 38 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 13 Oct 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, 27 of 27)

- [Language Models are Few-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.14165/) (2020)
- [Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.11903/) (2022)
- [Qwen3 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.09388/) (2025)
- [Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasoners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.11916/) (2022)
- [Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17651/) (2023)
- [TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human Falsehoods](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.07958/) (2021)
- [GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.12022/) (2023)
- [Improving Factuality and Reasoning in Language Models through Multiagent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14325/) (2023)
- [DeepSeek-V4: Towards Highly Efficient Million-Token Context Intelligence](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.19348/) (2026)
- [Large Language Models Cannot Self-Correct Reasoning Yet](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.01798/) (2023)
- [Encouraging Divergent Thinking in Large Language Models through Multi-Agent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.19118/) (2023)
- [ChatEval: Towards Better LLM-based Evaluators through Multi-Agent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.07201/) (2023)
- [Language Models can Solve Computer Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17491/) (2023)
- [ReConcile: Round-Table Conference Improves Reasoning via Consensus among Diverse LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.13007/) (2023)
- [Take a Step Back: Evoking Reasoning via Abstraction in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06117/) (2023)
- [Rethinking the Bounds of LLM Reasoning: Are Multi-Agent Discussions the Key?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.18272/) (2024)
- [Beyond Benchmarks: MathArena as an Evaluation Platform for Mathematics with LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.00674/) (2026)
- [Should we be going MAD? A Look at Multi-Agent Debate Strategies for LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.17371/) (2023)
- [Exchange-of-Thought: Enhancing Large Language Model Capabilities through Cross-Model Communication](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.01823/) (2023)
- [Debate or Vote: Which Yields Better Decisions in Multi-Agent Large Language Models?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.17536/) (2025)
- [GroupDebate: Enhancing the Efficiency of Multi-Agent Debate Using Group Discussion](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.14051/) (2024)
- [Free-MAD: Consensus-Free Multi-Agent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.11035/) (2025)
- [Not All Flips Are Conformity: Decomposing Stance Convergence in Multi-Agent LLM Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.00820/) (2026)
- [Latent Agents: A Post-Training Procedure for Internalized Multi-Agent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.24881/) (2026)
- [Context Learning for Multi-Agent Discussion](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.02350/) (2026)
- [The Consistency Illusion: How Multi-Agent Debate Hides Reasoning Misalignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.08457/) (2026)
- [PD3: A Project Duplication Detection Framework via Adapted Multi-Agent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.17492/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Multi-agent debate (MAD) aims to improve large language model reasoning by exposing agents to alternative solutions and enabling iterative revision. However, standard broadcast-style MAD makes peer answers visible without requiring agents to engage with a particular peer claim. As a result, reliable reasoning may be suppressed by conflicting or majority responses, limiting achievable performance, while erroneous reasoning may persist and degrade final predictions without actionable feedback. We propose TrueMAD, a backbone-agnostic test-time plug-in that introduces one-to-one, free-form peer advice between answer broadcasting and self-revision. Each source agent responds to a target's current reasoning through support, rebuttal, refinement, or further questions, while the target retains control over how to revise. The same mechanism can augment standard MAD and its improved variants without parameter updates. Across AIME, GPQA-Diamond, and TruthfulQA with Qwen3-30B-A3B, TrueMAD improves agent-level and strict-majority accuracy over MAD by 3.62 and 3.52 percentage points on average, while TrueDMAD improves DMAD by 4.72 and 4.06 points, respectively. Analyses at the utterance, agent-transition, and group levels further show more peer-specific deliberation, more correction-oriented revisions, and more favorable consensus dynamics.