From Debate to Deliberation: Structured Collective Reasoning with Typed Epistemic Acts

TL;DR

This paper introduces Deliberative Collective Intelligence (DCI), a structured multi-agent reasoning framework that improves complex decision-making by modeling phased deliberation with typed epistemic acts, outperforming unstructured debate in non-routine tasks.

Contribution

The paper presents DCI, a novel structured reasoning process with typed acts and a convergent algorithm, enabling accountable collective decisions and outperforming unstructured debate in complex tasks.

Findings

DCI significantly improves performance on non-routine tasks.

DCI achieves 100% structured decision packets and 98% minority reports.

DCI consumes substantially more tokens than single-agent generation, with mixed quality results.

Abstract

Multi-agent LLM systems increasingly tackle complex reasoning, yet their interaction patterns remain limited to voting, unstructured debate, or pipeline orchestration. None model deliberation: a phased process where differentiated participants exchange typed reasoning moves, preserve disagreements, and converge on accountable outcomes. We introduce Deliberative Collective Intelligence (DCI), specifying four reasoning archetypes, 14 typed epistemic acts, a shared workspace, and DCI-CF, a convergent flow algorithm that guarantees termination with a structured decision packet containing the selected option, residual objections, minority report, and reopen conditions. We evaluate on 45 tasks across seven domains using Gemini 2.5 Flash. On non-routine tasks (n=40), DCI significantly improves over unstructured debate (+0.95, 95% CI [+0.41, +1.54]). DCI excels on hidden-profile tasks requiring perspective integration (9.56, highest of any system on any domain) while failing on routine decisions (5.39), confirming task-dependence. DCI produces 100% structured decision packets and 98% minority reports, artifacts absent from all baselines. However, DCI consumes ~62x single-agent tokens, and single-agent generation outperforms DCI on overall quality. DCI's contribution is not that more agents are better, but that consequential decisions benefit from deliberative structure when process accountability justifies the cost.