Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
The paper introduces PROClaim, a courtroom-style multi-agent debate framework for claim verification that uses specialized roles and Progressive RAG (P-RAG) to dynamically refine evidence. PROClaim incorporates evidence negotiation, self-reflection, and multi-judge aggregation to improve calibration and robustness. Evaluated on the Check-COVID benchmark, PROClaim achieves 81.7% accuracy, a 10% improvement over standard multi-agent debate, demonstrating the effectiveness of structured deliberation and model heterogeneity in mitigating biases.
Courtroom-style debate with progressive evidence retrieval and role-switching boosts claim verification accuracy by 10%, suggesting structured deliberation can significantly reduce LLM unreliability.
Large language models (LLMs) remain unreliable for high-stakes claim verification due to hallucinations and shallow reasoning. While retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) and multi-agent debate (MAD) address this, they are limited by one-pass retrieval and unstructured debate dynamics. We propose a courtroom-style multi-agent framework, PROClaim, that reformulates verification as a structured, adversarial deliberation. Our approach integrates specialized roles (e.g., Plaintiff, Defense, Judge) with Progressive RAG (P-RAG) to dynamically expand and refine the evidence pool during the debate. Furthermore, we employ evidence negotiation, self-reflection, and heterogeneous multi-judge aggregation to enforce calibration, robustness, and diversity. In zero-shot evaluations on the Check-COVID benchmark, PROClaim achieves 81.7% accuracy, outperforming standard multi-agent debate by 10.0 percentage points, with P-RAG driving the primary performance gains (+7.5 pp). We ultimately demonstrate that structural deliberation and model heterogeneity effectively mitigate systematic biases, providing a robust foundation for reliable claim verification. Our code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/mnc13/PROClaim.
