If Multi-Agent Debate is the Answer, What is the Question?

Multi-agent debate (MAD) has emerged as a promising approach to enhance the factual accuracy and reasoning quality of large language models (LLMs) by engaging multiple agents in iterative discussions during inference. Despite its potential, we argue that current MAD research suffers from critical shortcomings in evaluation practices, including limited dataset overlap and inconsistent baselines, raising significant concerns about generalizability. Correspondingly, this paper presents a systematic evaluation of five representative MAD methods across nine benchmarks using four foundational models. Surprisingly, our findings reveal that MAD methods fail to reliably outperform simple single-agent baselines such as Chain-of-Thought and Self-Consistency, even when consuming additional inference-time computation. From our analysis, we found that model heterogeneity can significantly improve MAD frameworks. We propose Heter-MAD enabling a single LLM agent to access the output from heterogeneous foundation models, which boosts the performance of current MAD frameworks. Finally, we outline potential directions for advancing MAD, aiming to spark a broader conversation and inspire future work in this area.