Tool-MAD: A Multi-Agent Debate Framework for Fact Verification with Diverse Tool Augmentation and Adaptive Retrieval
Large Language Models (LLMs) suffer from hallucinations and factual inaccuracies, especially in complex reasoning and fact verification tasks. Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) systems aim to improve answer accuracy by enabling multiple LLM agents to engage in dialogue, promoting diverse reasoning and mutual verification. However, existing MAD frameworks primarily rely on internal knowledge or static documents, making them vulnerable to hallucinations. While MADKE introduces external evidence to mitigate this, its one-time retrieval mechanism limits adaptability to new arguments or emerging information during the debate. To address these limitations, We propose Tool-MAD, a multi-agent debate framework that enhances factual verification by assigning each agent a distinct external tool, such as a search API or RAG module. Tool-MAD introduces three key innovations: (1) a multi-agent debate framework where agents leverage heterogeneous external tools, encouraging diverse perspectives, (2) an adaptive query formulation mechanism that iteratively refines evidence retrieval based on the flow of the debate, and (3) the integration of Faithfulness and Answer Relevance scores into the final decision process, allowing the Judge agent to quantitatively assess the coherence and question alignment of each response and effectively detect hallucinations. Experimental results on four fact verification benchmarks demonstrate that Tool-MAD consistently outperforms state-of-the-art MAD frameworks, achieving up to 5.5% accuracy improvement. Furthermore, in medically specialized domains, Tool-MAD exhibits strong robustness and adaptability across various tool configurations and domain conditions, confirming its potential for broader real-world fact-checking applications.
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Tasks
Fact VerificationSimilar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
ACC-Debate: An Actor-Critic Approach to Multi-Agent Debate
Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated a remarkable ability to serve as general-purpose tools for various language-based tasks. Recent works have demonstrated that the efficacy of such models can be improved thro…
SWE-Debate: Competitive Multi-Agent Debate for Software Issue Resolution
Issue resolution has made remarkable progress thanks to the advanced reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs). Recently, agent-based frameworks such as SWE-agent have further advanced this progress by enabl…
DynaDebate: Breaking Homogeneity in Multi-Agent Debate with Dynamic Path Generation
Recent years have witnessed the rapid development of Large Language Model-based Multi-Agent Systems (MAS), which excel at collaborative decision-making and complex problem-solving. Researchers have further investigated M…
When Helping Hurts and How to Fix It: Multi-Agent Debate for Data Cleaning
When does multi-agent debate help data cleaning, and when does it hurt? Across three benchmarks, four model families, and over 6,000 task-condition pairs, we find debate's effect reverses sign: it degrades generation acr…
Debating Truth: Debate-driven Claim Verification with Multiple Large Language Model Agents
State-of-the-art single-agent claim verification methods struggle with complex claims that require nuanced analysis of multifaceted evidence. Inspired by real-world professional fact-checkers, we propose \textbf{DebateCV…