Evaluation demonstrates improved accuracy and token efficiency in multi-agent question answering using TRACE-QA, suggesting constraint-guided elimination outperforms debate-based frameworks.
Large language models (LLMs) remain vulnerable to answer anchoring, overconfidence, and fluent but unsupported justifications in binary and multiple-choice question answering. Recent answer-first debate frameworks force agents to inspect alternative stances, but they still spend substantial budget defending likely wrong answers and let a final judge consume long free-form interaction traces. We propose TRACE-QA, a training-free multi-agent protocol that routes each instance to a sparse set of reasoning operators, constructs option-blind necessity constraints, audits every candidate in a structured elimination ledger, revisits risky eliminations through global risk-aware rescue, and aggregates role-specialized judge votes. Under a unified three-seed protocol on HoVer, BoolQ, CosmosQA, and CommonsenseQA, TRACE-QA attains an average of 0.7731, exceeding the strongest common-protocol baseline (CFMAD) by 1.94 percentage points and improving on all five evaluation columns. Risk-aware rescue lowers the false-elimination rate from 5.2% without rescue to 1.4% and recovers 73.1% of recoverable false eliminations. We further evaluate structured graph reasoning on GraphSQA and a discrete in-toolset subset of Graph4real: TRACE-QA improves over text-only baselines, and with deterministic graph tools reaches 95.1%–97.8% accuracy across Graph4real scales. Full TRACE-QA remains substantially more expensive than chain-of-thought, but uses 19.7% fewer total tokens than CFMAD, and an adaptive variant saves 29.5% of its tokens at a 0.67-point accuracy cost. These results support constraint-guided elimination as an auditable alternative to answer-first debate, while exposing residual dependence on routing quality, ledger reliability, and backbone capability.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 2 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: