Multi-agent debate – multiple instances of large language models discussing problems in turn-based interaction – has shown promise for solving knowledge and reasoning tasks. However, these methods show limitations when solving complex problems that require longer reasoning chains. We analyze how multi-agent debate drifts away from the initial problem over multiple turns, thus harming task performance. We define this phenomenon as problem drift and quantify its presence across ten tasks (i.e., three generative, three knowledge, three reasoning, and one instruction-following task). We find that generative tasks drift often due to the subjectivity of the answer space (76-89%), compared to high-complexity tasks (7-21%). To identify the reasons, eight human experts analyze 170 multi-agent debates suffering from problem drift. We find the most common issues related to this drift are the lack of progress (35% of cases), low-quality feedback (26% of cases), and a lack of clarity (25% of cases). We propose DRIFTJudge, an LLM-as-a-judge method, as a first baseline to detect problem drift. We also propose DRIFTPolicy, which mitigates 31% of problem drift cases. Our study is a step toward understanding a key limitation of multi-agent debate, highlighting why longer debates can harm task performance and how problem drift could be addressed.

Multi-agent debate (MAD) has demonstrated the ability to augment collective intelligence by scaling test-time compute and leveraging expertise. Current frameworks for MAD are often designed towards tool use, lack integrated evaluation, or provide limited configurability of agent personas, response generators, discussion paradigms, and decision protocols. We introduce MALLM (Multi-Agent Large Language Models), an open-source framework that enables systematic analysis of MAD components. MALLM offers more than 144 unique configurations of MAD, including (1) agent personas (e.g., Expert, Personality), (2) response generators (e.g., Critical, Reasoning), (3) discussion paradigms (e.g., Memory, Relay), and (4) decision protocols (e.g., Voting, Consensus). MALLM uses simple configuration files to define a debate. Furthermore, MALLM can load any textual Hugging Face dataset (e.g., MMLU-Pro, WinoGrande) and provides an evaluation pipeline for easy comparison of MAD configurations. MALLM enables researchers to systematically configure, run, and evaluate debates for their problems, facilitating the understanding of the components and their interplay.

Much of the success of multi-agent debates depends on carefully choosing the right parameters. The decision-making protocol stands out as it can highly impact final model answers, depending on how decisions are reached. Systematic comparison of decision protocols is difficult because many studies alter multiple discussion parameters beyond the protocol. So far, it has been largely unknown how decision-making influences different tasks. This work systematically evaluates the impact of seven decision protocols (e.g., majority voting, unanimity consensus). We change only one variable at a time - the decision protocol - to analyze how different methods affect the collaboration between agents and measure differences in knowledge and reasoning tasks. Our results show that voting protocols improve performance by 13.2% in reasoning tasks and consensus protocols by 2.8% in knowledge tasks compared to other decision protocols. Increasing the number of agents improves performance, while more discussion rounds before voting reduce it. To improve decision-making by increasing answer diversity, we propose two new methods, All-Agents Drafting (AAD) and Collective Improvement (CI). Our methods improve task performance by up to 3.3% with AAD and up to 7.4% with CI. This work demonstrates the importance of decision-making in multi-agent debates beyond scaling.