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

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.28488 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.28488/

## Key facts

- Cited by 4 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 44 of its 75 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 30 Mar 2026.

## 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 44)

- [Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.11401/) (2020)
- [Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1908.10084/) (2019)
- [Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.11366/) (2023)
- [Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17651/) (2023)
- [Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.10997/) (2023)
- [Improving Factuality and Reasoning in Language Models through Multiagent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14325/) (2023)
- [A Survey on Hallucination in Large Language Models: Principles, Taxonomy, Challenges, and Open Questions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.05232/) (2023)
- [A Survey on LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.15594/) (2024)
- [Encouraging Divergent Thinking in Large Language Models through Multi-Agent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.19118/) (2023)
- [Interleaving Retrieval with Chain-of-Thought Reasoning for Knowledge-Intensive Multi-Step Questions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.10509/) (2022)
- [Reasoning Models Don't Always Say What They Think](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.05410/) (2025)
- [Enhancing Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models with Iterative Retrieval-Generation Synergy](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.15294/) (2023)
- [Replacing Judges with Juries: Evaluating LLM Generations with a Panel of Diverse Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.18796/) (2024)
- [FEVEROUS: Fact Extraction and VERification Over Unstructured and Structured information](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.05707/) (2021)
- [Condenser: a Pre-training Architecture for Dense Retrieval](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2104.08253/) (2021)
- [Should we be going MAD? A Look at Multi-Agent Debate Strategies for LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.17371/) (2023)
- [Sycophancy in Large Language Models: Causes and Mitigations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.15287/) (2024)
- [GroupDebate: Enhancing the Efficiency of Multi-Agent Debate Using Group Discussion](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.14051/) (2024)
- [AgentCourt: Simulating Court with Adversarial Evolvable Lawyer Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.08089/) (2024)
- [Decomposition Dilemmas: Does Claim Decomposition Boost or Burden Fact-Checking Performance?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.02400/) (2024)
- [Debate-to-Write: A Persona-Driven Multi-Agent Framework for Diverse Argument Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.19643/) (2024)
- [Removal of Hallucination on Hallucination: Debate-Augmented RAG](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.18581/) (2025)
- [Can LLM Agents Really Debate? A Controlled Study of Multi-Agent Debate in Logical Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.07784/) (2025)
- [Learning to Break: Knowledge-Enhanced Reasoning in Multi-Agent Debate System](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.04854/) (2023)
- [Check-COVID: Fact-Checking COVID-19 News Claims with Scientific Evidence](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.18265/) (2023)
- [Population-Aligned Persona Generation for LLM-based Social Simulation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.10127/) (2025)
- [FunnelRAG: A Coarse-to-Fine Progressive Retrieval Paradigm for RAG](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.10293/) (2024)
- [Resolving Conflicting Evidence in Automated Fact-Checking: A Study on Retrieval-Augmented LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.17762/) (2025)
- [Debate, Deliberate, Decide (D3): A Cost-Aware Adversarial Framework for Reliable and Interpretable LLM Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.04663/) (2024)
- [Vendi-RAG: Adaptively Trading-Off Diversity And Quality Significantly Improves Retrieval Augmented Generation With LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.11228/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 4 of 4)

- [PaperJury: Due-Process Review for Bounded LaTeX Revision](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.16322/) (2026)
- [Diagnosing and Mitigating Compounding Failures in Agentic Persuasion via Taxonomic Strategy Retrieval](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.24976/) (2026)
- [Automatic Hard Example Synthesis with Multi-Level Agentic Data Curation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.14256/) (2026)
- [Does the Competitive Component of Adversarial Self-Play Improve Legal Reasoning? A Controlled Negative Result](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.01559/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

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.