iMAD: Intelligent Multi-Agent Debate for Efficient and Accurate LLM Inference

Abstract

Large Language Model (LLM) agent systems have advanced rapidly, driven by their strong generalization in zero-shot settings. To further enhance reasoning and accuracy on complex tasks, Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) has emerged as a promising framework that engages multiple LLM agents in structured debates to encourage diverse reasoning. However, triggering MAD for every query is inefficient, as it incurs substantial computational (token) cost and may even degrade accuracy by overturning correct answers from single-agent. To address these limitations, we propose intelligent Multi-Agent Debate (iMAD), a token-efficient framework that selectively triggers MAD only when it is likely to be beneficial (i.e., correcting an initially wrong answer). To achieve this goal, iMAD learns generalizable model behaviors to make accurate debate decisions. Specifically, iMAD first prompts a single agent to produce a structured self-critique response, from which we extract 41 interpretable linguistic and semantic features capturing hesitation cues. Then, iMAD uses a lightweight debate decision classifier, trained using our proposed FocusCal loss without test-dataset-specific tuning, to make robust zero-shot debate decisions. Through extensive experiments using six (visual) question answering datasets against five competitive baselines, we show that iMAD significantly reduces token usage (by up to 92%) while also improving final answer accuracy (by up to 13.5%).