# Debating Truth: Debate-driven Claim Verification with Multiple Large Language Model Agents

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.19090 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.19090/

## Key facts

- Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Social simulation and multi-agent debate, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 37 of its 65 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 25 Jul 2025.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Social simulation and multi-agent debate](https://mlsanity.com/agents/social-simulation-and-multi-agent-debate/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 37)

- [Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.02155/) (2022)
- [LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.09685/) (2021)
- [Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.18290/) (2023)
- [AutoGen: Enabling Next-Gen LLM Applications via Multi-Agent Conversation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.08155/) (2023)
- [Improving Factuality and Reasoning in Language Models through Multiagent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14325/) (2023)
- [CAMEL: Communicative Agents for "Mind" Exploration of Large Language Model Society](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17760/) (2023)
- [FEVER: a large-scale dataset for Fact Extraction and VERification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1803.05355/) (2018)
- [Encouraging Divergent Thinking in Large Language Models through Multi-Agent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.19118/) (2023)
- [LLMs Get Lost In Multi-Turn Conversation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.06120/) (2025)
- [A Survey on Automated Fact-Checking](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2108.11896/) (2021)
- [Debating with More Persuasive LLMs Leads to More Truthful Answers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.06782/) (2024)
- [Exploring Collaboration Mechanisms for LLM Agents: A Social Psychology View](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.02124/) (2023)
- [AVeriTeC: A Dataset for Real-world Claim Verification with Evidence from the Web](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.13117/) (2023)
- [Complex Claim Verification with Evidence Retrieved in the Wild](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.11859/) (2023)
- [Towards Automated Factchecking: Developing an Annotation Schema and Benchmark for Consistent Automated Claim Detection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1809.08193/) (2018)
- [Stance Detection with Collaborative Role-Infused LLM-Based Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.10467/) (2023)
- [Explainable Fake News Detection With Large Language Model via Defense Among Competing Wisdom](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.03371/) (2024)
- [Can LLMs Produce Faithful Explanations For Fact-checking? Towards Faithful Explainable Fact-Checking via Multi-Agent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.07401/) (2024)
- [DEFAME: Dynamic Evidence-based FAct-checking with Multimodal Experts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.10510/) (2024)
- [Can LLMs Speak For Diverse People? Tuning LLMs via Debate to Generate Controllable Controversial Statements](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.10614/) (2024)
- [The Automated Verification of Textual Claims (AVeriTeC) Shared Task](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.23850/) (2024)
- [Show Me the Work: Fact-Checkers' Requirements for Explainable Automated Fact-Checking](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.09083/) (2025)
- [The Truth Becomes Clearer Through Debate! Multi-Agent Systems with Large Language Models Unmask Fake News](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.08532/) (2025)
- [Removal of Hallucination on Hallucination: Debate-Augmented RAG](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.18581/) (2025)
- [Retrieval Augmented Fact Verification by Synthesizing Contrastive Arguments](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.09815/) (2024)
- [FACT-AUDIT: An Adaptive Multi-Agent Framework for Dynamic Fact-Checking Evaluation of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.17924/) (2025)
- [Let Silence Speak: Enhancing Fake News Detection with Generated Comments from Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.16631/) (2024)
- [Improved Target-specific Stance Detection on Social Media Platforms by Delving into Conversation Threads](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.03061/) (2022)
- [Resolving Conflicting Evidence in Automated Fact-Checking: A Study on Retrieval-Augmented LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.17762/) (2025)
- [MCFEND: A Multi-source Benchmark Dataset for Chinese Fake News Detection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.09092/) (2024)

## Built on by (most cited first, 6 of 6)

- [Can LLM Agents Really Debate? A Controlled Study of Multi-Agent Debate in Logical Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.07784/) (2025)
- [Fact2Fiction: Targeted Poisoning Attack to Agentic Fact-checking System](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.06059/) (2025)
- [Putting on the Thinking Hats: A Survey on Chain of Thought Fine-tuning from the Perspective of Human Reasoning Mechanism](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.13170/) (2025)
- [Courtroom-Style Multi-Agent Debate with Progressive RAG and Role-Switching for Controversial Claim Verification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.28488/) (2026)
- [From Verdict to Process: Agentic Reinforcement Learning for Multi-Stage Fact Verification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.13262/) (2026)
- [The impact of multi-agent debate protocols on debate quality: a controlled case study](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.28813/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

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 DebateCV, the first debate-driven claim verification framework powered by multiple LLM agents. In DebateCV, two textitDebaters argue opposing stances to surface subtle errors in single-agent assessments. A decisive textitModerator is then required to weigh the evidential strength of conflicting arguments to deliver an accurate verdict. Yet, zero-shot Moderators are biased toward neutral judgments, and no datasets exist for training them. To bridge this gap, we propose Debate-SFT, a post-training framework that leverages synthetic data to enhance agents' ability to effectively adjudicate debates for claim verification. Results show that our methods surpass state-of-the-art non-debate approaches in both accuracy (across various evidence conditions) and justification quality.