Track genomics, neuroscience and molecular biology.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
To decouple beneficial consensus from destructive groupthink in multi-agent LLM debate, this work tracks 6,925 MMLU-Pro debates through an auditable transition ledger that formalizes when discussions flip from right-to-wrong (collapse) versus wrong-to-right (correction). The findings show that naive collapse-prevention interventions carry massive opportunity costs: a probe-gated freeze prevented 29 collapses but simultaneously discarded 108 valid corrections under equal weights. Because critical consensus shifts predominantly trigger in the very first round, multi-agent scaffolds must be judged by signed transition utility rather than uninformative net accuracy metrics.
Halting LLM debate consensus-drift to stop groupthink can backfire severely: a probe-gated freeze stopped 29 collapses into wrong answers at the direct cost of sacrificing 108 valid self-corrections.
Multi-agent large language model (LLM) debate is often evaluated by whether final answers improve, but movement is not necessarily improvement: the same discussion can rescue an initially wrong majority or destroy an initially correct one. Standard final-accuracy evaluations conflate these opposing mechanisms. We introduce an auditable protocol for homogeneous debate on multiple-choice questions (MCQs) that records each run as a transition ledger over collapse, correction, onset, and signed intervention utility. On 6,925 MMLU-Pro debates, the protocol identifies 253 collapses and a parallel correction ledger that changes how interventions should be judged. Replay experiments reveal the central tradeoff: a leave-one-model-out probe-gated freeze prevents 29 collapses but loses 108 corrections under equal weights, so collapse prevention alone can recommend the wrong policy. A compact pre-debate 8-probe screen is a triage signal: its unadjusted family-level association with conditional-collapse risk is high (G=7, Spearman rho=0.893, exact two-sided p=0.0123), but initial-majority accuracy is a close comparator (rho=0.821; family partial rho=0.767, p=0.0877), so we do not treat it as calibrated or capability-adjusted prediction. Round-level traces localize many collapses to the first debate round, where early disagreement can precede both harmful cascades and useful recovery. We release replayable schemas, coders, audits, cost cards, and zero-API rebuild scripts so future model-scaffold rows can be compared under the same denominators and signed utility ledger.