בדיקה משולבת של חילוקי דעה ואיכות התשובה במשא ומתן בין רשתות עבודה

תקציר מקורי באנגליתarXiv:2609.08016v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multi-agent debate, in which several LLMs exchange arguments before answering, is widely assumed to improve answer quality by surfacing genuine disagreement. That mechanism is rarely checked. We introduce four measurements: (A) the agreement a debater reports; (B) whether its reply text actually pushes back; (C) whether the position persists once the eliciting instruction is removed; and (D) for open-weight models, the stance response in the debater's own token log-probabilities. We evaluate three-model committees debating open-ended GlobalOpinionQA across 750 debates under three tones: friendly (seek common ground), neutral, and hostile (stress-test every position). (A) Tone strongly reshapes reported agreement: full agreement differs by 50.