摘要
arXiv:2605.29116v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: When multiple LLM agents solve the same problem, standard practice compresses each agent's reasoning into a majority vote or layered synthesis, treating agreement as the finish line. We show this is unnecessarily lossy: an LLM aggregator that reads complete reasoning traces recovers correct solutions even when agents unanimously agree, with beneficial corrections consistently outweighing harmful ones -- the \emph{aggregation paradox}. Majority voting has a ceiling that perturbation diversity does not raise (error correlations are identical); the aggregator's gain comes from trace-level complementarity, assembling correct intermediate steps from minority chains that voting discards.
相关事件查看全部 (1)
相关公司
暂无数据
相关人物
暂无数据
相关产品
暂无数据
相关技术
暂无数据