From Belief Entrenchment to Robust Reasoning in LLM Agents

Abstract Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) has emerged as a promising inference scaling method for Large Language Model (LLM) reasoning. However, it frequently suffers from belief entrenchment, where agents reinforce shared errors rather than correcting them. Going beyond merely identifying this failure, we decompose it into two distinct root causes: (1) the model’s biased static initial belief and (2) homogenized debate dynamics that amplify the majority view regardless of correctness. To address these sequentially, we propose DReaMAD (Diverse Reasoning via MultiAgent Debate). Our framework first rectifies the static belief via strategic prior knowledge elicitation, then reshapes the debate dynamics by enforcing perspective diversity. Validated on our new MetaNIM Arena benchmark, DReaMAD significantly mitigates entrenchment, achieving a +9.5% accuracy gain over ReAct prompting and a +19.0% higher win rate than standard MAD.