An Inspectable LLM Council for Multi-Model Research Answer Aggregation
TL;DR
This work presents an inspectable LLM Council with two synthesis stages: an analyst organizes three independent candidate answers into a structured textual state, and a separately invoked writer composes the final response from the question and that state.
Abstract
Long-form research questions often require answers that combine complementary details, reconcile conflicting estimates, and retain qualifications across several large language model (LLM) outputs. We present an inspectable LLM Council with two synthesis stages: an analyst organizes three independent candidate answers into a structured textual state, and a separately invoked writer composes the final response from the question and that state. We evaluate the workflow on 100 closed-book tasks from the Deep Research Accuracy, Completeness, and Objectivity (DRACO) benchmark, retaining 600 final answers, 100 analyst states, and 720 whole-answer judgments. Under the primary rubric judge, Council scores 70.98, exceeding GPT and Gemini by 6.18 and 8.34 points; its 0.47-point difference from Claude has a 95% paired interval of $[-0.69,1.61]$. In the four-arm fusion comparison, Council scores 1.87 points above direct fusion (95% paired interval $[0.33,3.48]$) and covers 51.1% of positive criteria covered by exactly one candidate, compared with 43.7% for direct fusion. On an exploratory 68-task subset with matching returned model labels, direct fusion scores higher. The full comparison characterizes workflows that differ in structure and generation budget; estimating the analyst stage's effect requires a controlled component study. Traced cases show how selected estimates, provenance qualifications, and selection decisions pass through the saved state into final answers.
