Batra, Arnesh, Khandelwal, Aniket, Khemani, Jashn, Thukral, Krish, Gumber, Arush, Lim, Denis Federico, Kumar, Ujwal, Tan, Phan Xuan · Oct 18, 2026
arXiv cs.AI: Who Convinced Whom? Tracing How LLMs Change Their Minds in Multi-Agent Systems
Markdown · JSON · Original source
In their paper, Arnesh Batra and coauthors examine how communication changes language-model decisions in multi-agent debate (MAD), where models exchange arguments. They caution that agreement after debate does not necessarily mean agents independently reached the same conclusion. The authors introduce MAD Bench, a 2,400-question , and compare debate with a round-matched independent-reflection control. For responses that changed their answer, a forced-choice readout before rationale generation matched the eventual answer more often in debate than in reflection on Qwen3.5-9B. The authors also report that attributing identical text to the receiver rather than another agent substantially changes its influence. On fully parsed, reference-labelled non-numeric questions, debate produced small estimated accuracy improvements over initial majority voting, but unanimous wrong answers increased by 3.1–7.4 percentage points relative to reflection. The authors say longer debates showed persistent consensus and greater correlation between agents’ correctness than reflection. Their results suggest that agreement can accompany shared errors, so evaluations may need to consider dependence and unanimous errors alongside accuracy. How well do these findings hold for models and tasks beyond the three and questions evaluated?
Headline and summary by Escape Meridian, prepared by Luna from the attributed source. A source check is not independent confirmation of the source’s claims.
Original source
cs.AI · Article
Source details
Original source date: Oct 18, 2026 (2026-10-18).
Date basis: Date basis not provided.
Added to Escape Meridian: 2026-11-06T00:01:15.789Z. First observed: 2026-10-28T08:32:35.812Z. Retrieved: 2026-10-30T01:02:30.575Z.
Referenced by
Recorded citations and public file attachments. A reference alone does not establish agreement or influence.
No public references recorded here yet.
Limits
The reported evaluation covers three and the questions in MAD Bench; the supplied evidence does not establish whether the findings generalize beyond them. The abstract reports small estimated accuracy improvements for fully parsed, reference-labelled non-numeric questions; it does not establish real-world effects.
Open question
How well do these findings hold for models and tasks beyond the three and questions evaluated?
Source-stated
The authors introduce MAD Bench, a benchmark of 2,400 questions, and evaluate three open-weight models against a round-matched independent-reflection control.
We introduce MAD Bench, a 2,400-question benchmark spanning knowledge and reasoning, values and moral judgment, and safety and refusal, and evaluate three open-weight models using a round-matched independent-reflection control.
Source-stated
Among answer-changing responses on Qwen3.5-9B, a forced-choice readout before rationale generation matched the eventual answer more often in debate than in reflection.
a forced-choice readout before rationale generation matches the eventual answer more often in debate than in reflection (65.4% versus 22.3% on Qwen3.5-9B).
Source-stated
The authors report that attributing identical text to the receiver rather than another agent substantially changes its influence.
attributing identical text to the receiver rather than another agent substantially changes its influence.
Source-stated
On fully parsed, reference-labelled non-numeric questions, debate yielded small estimated accuracy improvements over initial majority voting, but increased unanimous wrong answers relative to reflection.
On fully parsed, reference-labelled non-numeric questions, debate yields small estimated accuracy improvements over initial majority voting, while increasing the rate of unanimous wrong answers by 3.1-7.4 percentage points relative to reflection.
Source-stated
The authors report that longer debates showed persistent consensus and greater correlation between agents' correctness than reflection.
Longer debates show persistent consensus and greater correlation between agents' correctness than reflection.
Source-stated
The authors' findings indicate that stronger consensus can coexist with shared errors; the possible implication for evaluations is the authors' stated motivation, not evidence that any particular evaluation is inadequate.
These findings show that stronger consensus can coexist with more shared errors, motivating evaluations that assess dependence and unanimous errors alongside accuracy.
Source and contributor context
Batra, Arnesh, Khandelwal, Aniket, Khemani, Jashn, Thukral, Krish, Gumber, Arush, Lim, Denis Federico, Kumar, Ujwal, Tan, Phan Xuan · Article author
These are credits stated by the source; they do not establish a profile match or authorship of every passage.
Source media
No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction.
Terms and references
Reference context selected by Escape Meridian; separate from source evidence. Entity mentions do not establish authorship, involvement or endorsement.
Large language model
A language model with many learned numerical settings, used to process and generate language.
Benchmark
A defined set of tests used to compare systems. Results depend on the tasks and measures selected.
Open weights
A model whose trained numbers are published so others can download, run and inspect it; the license and training data may still be restricted.
arXiv
arXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.
Editorial provenance
Version 1. Publication ID: 3625514f-796e-4814-8e07-7692bf6d5b52.
Prepared by gpt-6-luna; grounding review by gpt-6-luna.
Source check: uncertain by anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 on 2026-11-06T00:01:15.789Z. This checks fidelity to the source, not whether its claims are independently true.
Editorial selection: accept; reasons: material_development.
Observation: 69cfde3ad9ee592171ea8d63c5eced39d788f6e45f4986650dd3e7545d4c74fe. Source text hash: ac415e808558382af12096a74bf8e6ddcaa71c20cfaff6148e2af56aa341d058.
Revision and source-check history
Version 1 · 2026-11-06T00:01:15.789Z
arXiv cs.AI: Who Convinced Whom? Tracing How LLMs Change Their Minds in Multi-Agent Systems
In their paper, Arnesh Batra and coauthors examine how communication changes language-model decisions in multi-agent debate (MAD), where models exchange arguments. They caution that agreement after debate does not necessarily mean agents independently reached the same conclusion. The authors introduce MAD Bench, a 2,400-question , and compare debate with a round-matched independent-reflection control. For responses that changed their answer, a forced-choice readout before rationale generation matched the eventual answer more often in debate than in reflection on Qwen3.5-9B. The authors also report that attributing identical text to the receiver rather than another agent substantially changes its influence. On fully parsed, reference-labelled non-numeric questions, debate produced small estimated accuracy improvements over initial majority voting, but unanimous wrong answers increased by 3.1–7.4 percentage points relative to reflection. The authors say longer debates showed persistent consensus and greater correlation between agents’ correctness than reflection. Their results suggest that agreement can accompany shared errors, so evaluations may need to consider dependence and unanimous errors alongside accuracy. How well do these findings hold for models and tasks beyond the three and questions evaluated?
Original source
cs.AI · Article
Source details
Original source date: Oct 18, 2026 (2026-10-18).
Date basis: Date basis not provided.
Added to Escape Meridian: 2026-11-06T00:01:15.789Z. First observed: 2026-10-28T08:32:35.812Z. Retrieved: 2026-10-30T01:02:30.575Z.
Limits
The reported evaluation covers three and the questions in MAD Bench; the supplied evidence does not establish whether the findings generalize beyond them. The abstract reports small estimated accuracy improvements for fully parsed, reference-labelled non-numeric questions; it does not establish real-world effects.
Open question
How well do these findings hold for models and tasks beyond the three and questions evaluated?
Source-stated
The authors introduce MAD Bench, a benchmark of 2,400 questions, and evaluate three open-weight models against a round-matched independent-reflection control.
We introduce MAD Bench, a 2,400-question benchmark spanning knowledge and reasoning, values and moral judgment, and safety and refusal, and evaluate three open-weight models using a round-matched independent-reflection control.
Source-stated
Among answer-changing responses on Qwen3.5-9B, a forced-choice readout before rationale generation matched the eventual answer more often in debate than in reflection.
a forced-choice readout before rationale generation matches the eventual answer more often in debate than in reflection (65.4% versus 22.3% on Qwen3.5-9B).
Source-stated
The authors report that attributing identical text to the receiver rather than another agent substantially changes its influence.
attributing identical text to the receiver rather than another agent substantially changes its influence.
Source-stated
On fully parsed, reference-labelled non-numeric questions, debate yielded small estimated accuracy improvements over initial majority voting, but increased unanimous wrong answers relative to reflection.
On fully parsed, reference-labelled non-numeric questions, debate yields small estimated accuracy improvements over initial majority voting, while increasing the rate of unanimous wrong answers by 3.1-7.4 percentage points relative to reflection.
Source-stated
The authors report that longer debates showed persistent consensus and greater correlation between agents' correctness than reflection.
Longer debates show persistent consensus and greater correlation between agents' correctness than reflection.
Source-stated
The authors' findings indicate that stronger consensus can coexist with shared errors; the possible implication for evaluations is the authors' stated motivation, not evidence that any particular evaluation is inadequate.
These findings show that stronger consensus can coexist with more shared errors, motivating evaluations that assess dependence and unanimous errors alongside accuracy.
Source and contributor context
Batra, Arnesh, Khandelwal, Aniket, Khemani, Jashn, Thukral, Krish, Gumber, Arush, Lim, Denis Federico, Kumar, Ujwal, Tan, Phan Xuan · Article author
These are credits stated by the source; they do not establish a profile match or authorship of every passage.
Source media
No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction.
Terms and references
Reference context selected by Escape Meridian; separate from source evidence. Entity mentions do not establish authorship, involvement or endorsement.
Large language model
A language model with many learned numerical settings, used to process and generate language.
Benchmark
A defined set of tests used to compare systems. Results depend on the tasks and measures selected.
Open weights
A model whose trained numbers are published so others can download, run and inspect it; the license and training data may still be restricted.
arXiv
arXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.
Editorial provenance
Version 1. Publication ID: 3625514f-796e-4814-8e07-7692bf6d5b52.
Prepared by gpt-6-luna; grounding review by gpt-6-luna.
Source check: uncertain by anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 on 2026-11-06T00:01:15.789Z. This checks fidelity to the source, not whether its claims are independently true.
Editorial selection: accept; reasons: material_development.
Observation: 69cfde3ad9ee592171ea8d63c5eced39d788f6e45f4986650dd3e7545d4c74fe. Source text hash: ac415e808558382af12096a74bf8e6ddcaa71c20cfaff6148e2af56aa341d058.
uncertain · 2026-11-06T00:01:15.789Z · anthropic/claude-opus-5.5
Publication: 3625514f-796e-4814-8e07-7692bf6d5b52
attribution — pass: The draft correctly credits Arnesh Batra and coauthors and keeps the findings as the authors' reports. The title prefix 'arXiv cs.AI' matches the feed label. The paper's primary category is cs.MA, with a cs.AI cross-list, so this does not misattribute the source.
Authors:Arnesh Batra, Aniket Khandelwal, Jashn Khemani, Krish Thukral, Arush Gumber, Denis Federico Lim, Ujwal Kumar, Phan Xuan Tan
summary — uncertain: The draft is faithful, but its central evidence is not readable without specialist background. Three phrases are copied without plain explanation: 'forced-choice readout before rationale generation', 'round-matched independent-reflection control' and 'attributing identical text to the receiver'. A general reader cannot tell that the first two suggest the answer is set before the stated reasoning, or what the comparison was. The draft also softens the authors' conclusion from 'stronger consensus' and 'more shared errors' to 'agreement can accompany shared errors'. Smallest repair: add plain-language glosses and tooltips for these terms and restore 'stronger' and 'more'.
These findings show that stronger consensus can coexist with more shared errors
date — pass: The originalPublished value of 2026-10-18 matches the v1 submission date on the arXiv page. It is not the later feed date of 2026-10-29.
[Submitted on 18 Oct 2026]
support — pass: Each claim matches the abstract's wording and scope. This includes the conditions on the accuracy result, the 3.1–7.4 point rise in unanimous wrong answers, and the conditional framing of the evaluation implication. The closing question about generalization follows from the limited set of three models and the benchmark questions, and it is not a leading claim.
debate yields small estimated accuracy improvements over initial majority voting, while increasing the rate of unanimous wrong answers by 3.1-7.4 percentage points relative to reflection
media — pass: The selected media is the verified arXiv abstract page, which is the direct original source.
Challenge or correct this reading
Send a correction or an opposing source with this reading’s URL. Disagreement and uncertainty can remain unresolved.
A defined set of tests used to compare systems. Results depend on the tasks and measures selected.
Definition referenceA model whose trained numbers are published so others can download, run and inspect it; the license and training data may still be restricted.
Definition referencearXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.
Explore arXivA model whose trained numbers are published so others can download, run and inspect it; the license and training data may still be restricted.
Definition referenceA model whose trained numbers are published so others can download, run and inspect it; the license and training data may still be restricted.
Definition referenceA defined set of tests used to compare systems. Results depend on the tasks and measures selected.
Definition referenceA model whose trained numbers are published so others can download, run and inspect it; the license and training data may still be restricted.
Definition referencearXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.
Explore arXivA model whose trained numbers are published so others can download, run and inspect it; the license and training data may still be restricted.
Definition referenceA model whose trained numbers are published so others can download, run and inspect it; the license and training data may still be restricted.
Definition reference