用统计检验动态控制大模型辩论轮次，省计算又防失败。

Multi-agent LLM debate improves factuality and reasoning, but most recipes pick a fixed round count, over-spending on easy items and under-spending on hard ones. We adapt Wald's Sequential Probability Ratio Test (SPRT) as a plug-in compute governor for LLM debates. After each round, an LLM judge emits a [0,1] consensus score on the latest agent positions; a Wald monitor accumulates the log-likelihood ratio of "useful convergence" vs "not yet useful" under a Beta likelihood family, and stops when either boundary is crossed or returns a capped best-effort outcome at R_max. Under i.i.d. assumptions the rule inherits SPRT type-I/type-II error guarantees; in deployment the calibration itself is the more important object, since it estimates whether the judge score actually separates useful from unhelpful convergence in a given domain. We evaluate two tracks: (i) a Monte-Carlo study under calibrated Beta models characterising working curves, error rates, capping behaviour, and sensitivity; and (ii) a real-LLM evaluation on 200 attempted MMLU and 200 attempted GSM8K items with three heterogeneous agents (gpt-5, claude-opus-4-6, gemini-2.5-pro) and a claude-opus-4-6 judge, using disjoint 40-item calibration subsets. On GSM8K the rule stops in 1.01 average rounds (4.06 LLM calls) at 97.0% accuracy vs 99.0% for fixed-5 debate at 15 calls: a 3.7x call reduction at -2pp accuracy. On MMLU the calibrated KL collapses to about 0 and the rule caps on 99.5% of items at 2.1x cost. The takeaway is not that SPRT makes debate more accurate, but that a classical sequential test serves as a cheap compute-control and failure-detection layer for multi-agent LLM systems.