mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Thucy: An LLM-based Multi-Agent System for Claim Verification across Relational Databases

arXiv 2512.03278 ↗First posted 2 Dec 2025cs.DB cs.AIcited by 5

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Web, search, and research agents

Abstract (arXiv)

In today's age, it is becoming increasingly difficult to decipher truth from lies. Every day, politicians, media outlets, and public figures make conflicting claims -- often about topics that can, in principle, be verified against structured data. For instance, statements about crime rates, economic growth or healthcare can all be verified against official public records and structured datasets. Building a system that can automatically do that would have sounded like science fiction just a few years ago. Yet, with the extraordinary progress in LLMs and agentic AI, this is now within reach. Still, there remains a striking gap between what is technically possible and what is being demonstrated by recent work. Most existing verification systems operate only on small, single-table databases -- typically a few hundred rows -- that conveniently fit within an LLM's context window. In this paper we report our progress on Thucy, the first cross-database, cross-table multi-agent claim verification system that also provides concrete evidence for each verification verdict. Thucy remains completely agnostic to the underlying data sources before deployment and must therefore autonomously discover, inspect, and reason over all available relational databases to verify claims. Importantly, Thucy also reports the exact SQL queries that support its verdict (whether the claim is accurate or not) offering full transparency to expert users familiar with SQL. When evaluated on the TabFact dataset -- the standard benchmark for fact verification over structured data -- Thucy surpasses the previous state of the art by 5.6 percentage points in accuracy (94.3% vs. 88.7%).

Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Web, search, and research agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 7 of its 15 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 Dec 2025.

Builds on

7 of 15 references.

References · 7

  1. 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,695
  2. 2018Spider: A Large-Scale Human-Labeled Dataset for Complex and Cross-Domain Semantic Parsing and Text-to-SQL Taskcited by 1,139
  3. 2022Binding Language Models in Symbolic Languagescited by 228
  4. 2024Chain-of-Table: Evolving Tables in the Reasoning Chain for Table Understandingcited by 188
  5. 2023Large Language Models are Versatile Decomposers: Decompose Evidence and Questions for Table-based Reasoningcited by 178
  6. 2023ReAcTable: Enhancing ReAct for Table Question Answeringcited by 76
  7. 2024Interpretable LLM-based Table Question Answeringcited by 18

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 5.

5 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026A Multi-Agent Approach for Claim Verification from Tabular Data Documents
  2. 2026TRUST Agents: A Collaborative Multi-Agent Framework for Fake News Detection, Explainable Verification, and Logic-Aware Claim Reasoning
  3. 2026Leveraging LLM Parametric Knowledge for Fact Checking without Retrieval
  4. 2023The Perils & Promises of Fact-checking with Large Language Models
  5. 2026CLAIR-Fin: An Adversarial Multi-Agent Framework for Claim-Level Verification and Adaptive Debate in Cross-Modal Financial QA
  6. 2024Can We Trust AI Agents? A Case Study of an LLM-Based Multi-Agent System for Ethical AI
  7. 2026Courtroom-Style Multi-Agent Debate with Progressive RAG and Role-Switching for Controversial Claim Verification
  8. 2025MAD-Fact: A Multi-Agent Debate Framework for Long-Form Factuality Evaluation in LLMs