Courtroom-Style Multi-Agent Debate with Progressive RAG and Role-Switching for Controversial Claim Verification

View PDF HTML (experimental)

Abstract: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 this https URL.

Comments: Under review, 7 figures, 13 tables

Subjects:

Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Multiagent Systems (cs.MA)

Cite as: arXiv:2603.28488 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2603.28488v1 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2603.28488

arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

Submission history

From: Syed Rifat Raiyan [view email] [v1] Mon, 30 Mar 2026 14:23:15 UTC (1,128 KB)