Table 3 shows that by integrating our method with other methods, the performance can be further improved across different LLMs and tasks, despite these methods have different implementations. To be specific, in arithmetic reasoning tasks, our method enhances these methods to further improvement, yielding increases between \(10\%\) and \(21\%\) on the GSM8K dataset, and between \(1\%\) and \(15\%\) on the MATH dataset. In general reasoning tasks, integration with other methods generally achieves performance gains ranging from \(1\%\) to \(13\%\) in the Chess task and from \(1\%\) to \(11\%\) in the MMLU task. In code generation task, when combined with other methods, gains range from \(2\%\) to \(7\%\). However, two notable exceptions are observed when integrated with the debate method with the Llama2-13B and Llama2-70B models, which result in failed cases. This failure in performance is attributed primarily to the noise generated by referencing the answers of other agents during the debate process. The synthesized responses, which incorporate input from multiple agents, disrupt the coherence of the code logic, leading to the observed performance degradation. All accuracy curves are provided in the Appendix B.