Retrieval and Argumentation Enhanced Multi-Agent LLMs for Judgmental Forecasting

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2510.24303v2
• Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2025 15:46:42 GMT
• Title: Retrieval and Argumentation Enhanced Multi-Agent LLMs for Judgmental Forecasting
• Abstract summary: We propose a novel multi-agent framework for claim verification.<n>Different agents may disagree on claim veracity and bring specific evidence for and against the claims.<n>We observe that combining evidence from agents can improve forecasting accuracy.
• Score: 22.109381003702595
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Judgmental forecasting is the task of making predictions about future events based on human judgment. This task can be seen as a form of claim verification, where the claim corresponds to a future event and the task is to assess the plausibility of that event. In this paper, we propose a novel multi-agent framework for claim verification, whereby different agents may disagree on claim veracity and bring specific evidence for and against the claims, represented as quantitative bipolar argumentation frameworks (QBAFs). We then instantiate the framework for supporting claim verification, with a variety of agents realised with Large Language Models (LLMs): (1) ArgLLM agents, an existing approach for claim verification that generates and evaluates QBAFs; (2) RbAM agents, whereby LLM-empowered Relation-based Argument Mining (RbAM) from external sources is used to generate QBAFs; (3) RAG-ArgLLM agents, extending ArgLLM agents with a form of Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) of arguments from external sources. Finally, we conduct experiments with two standard judgmental forecasting datasets, with instances of our framework with two or three agents, empowered by six different base LLMs. We observe that combining evidence from agents can improve forecasting accuracy, especially in the case of three agents, while providing an explainable combination of evidence for claim verification.

Related papers

• From Sequence to Structure: Relational Uncertainty Propagation for LLM Agents [75.69180947909148]
  We propose a trajectory-level UQ framework for large language model (LLM) agents.<n>RuPA represents an execution history as a directed trajectory graph in which reasoning states, tool interactions, and environment feedback are nodes connected by temporal and semantic dependency edges.<n>We evaluate RUPA on representative agent benchmarks, including $$-2, Terminal-Bench-2, and GAIA, using 6 open-source LLMs spanning multiple model families.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-17T01:40:14Z)
• Time to REFLECT: Can We Trust LLM Judges for Evidence-based Research Agents? [61.49434544687523]
  We introduce REFLECT, a meta-evaluation benchmark targeting fine-grained failure detection in agentic environments.<n> REFLECT defines a detailed taxonomy of process- and outcome-level failure modes, instantiated by performing controlled and localized interventions.<n>Our experiments show that even the best-performing models achieve overall accuracies below 55% across reasoning, tool-use, and report-quality failures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-18T23:55:08Z)
• AgentV-RL: Scaling Reward Modeling with Agentic Verifier [63.55502685076245]
  Verifiers have been demonstrated to enhance LLM reasoning via test-time scaling (TTS)<n>We propose Agentic Verifier, a framework that transforms reward modeling into a multi-turn, tool-augmented deliberative process.<n>We show that Agentic Verifier yields consistent performance gains under both parallel and sequential TTS.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-17T12:27:36Z)
• AffectAgent: Collaborative Multi-Agent Reasoning for Retrieval-Augmented Multimodal Emotion Recognition [62.16431420189863]
  LLM-based multimodal emotion recognition relies on static parametric memory and often hallucinates when interpreting nuanced affective states.<n>We introduce AffectAgent, an affect-oriented multi-agent retrieval-augmented generation framework.<n>AffectAgent comprises three jointly optimized agents, namely a query planner, an evidence filter, and an emotion generator.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-14T13:49:19Z)
• TRUST Agents: A Collaborative Multi-Agent Framework for Fake News Detection, Explainable Verification, and Logic-Aware Claim Reasoning [0.0]
  TRUST Agents is a framework for explainable fact verification and fake news detection.<n>It identifies verifiable claims, retrieves relevant evidence, compares claims against that evidence, reasons under uncertainty, and generates explanations that humans can inspect.<n>To handle complex claims more effectively, we introduce a decomposer agent inspired by LoCal-style claim decomposition, a Delphi-inspired multi-agent jury with specialized verifier personas, and a logic aggregator.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-14T01:31:14Z)
• MC-Search: Evaluating and Enhancing Multimodal Agentic Search with Structured Long Reasoning Chains [79.14584837105808]
  We present MC-Search, the first benchmark for agentic MM-RAG with long, step-wise annotated reasoning chains spanning five representative reasoning structures.<n>Beyond answer accuracy, MC-Search introduces new process-level metrics for reasoning quality, stepwise retrieval and planning accuracy.<n>By developing a unified agentic MM-RAG pipeline, we benchmark six leading MLLMs and reveal systematic issues such as over- and under-retrieval and modality-misaligned planning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-01T02:25:57Z)
• Adaptive Collaboration of Arena-Based Argumentative LLMs for Explainable and Contestable Legal Reasoning [1.4988096015658898]
  ACAL is a neuro-symbolic framework that integrates adaptive multi-agent collaboration with an Arena-based Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Framework (A-QBAF)<n>ACAL dynamically deploys expert agent teams to construct arguments, employs a clash resolution mechanism to adjudicate conflicting claims, and utilizes uncertainty-aware escalation for borderline cases.<n>Our framework supports a Human-in-the-Loop (HITL) contestability workflow, enabling users to directly audit and modify the underlying reasoning graph to influence the final judgment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-21T17:47:13Z)
• Search-R2: Enhancing Search-Integrated Reasoning via Actor-Refiner Collaboration [49.9937230730202]
  We propose Search-R2, a novel Actor-Refiner collaboration framework that enhances reasoning through targeted intervention.<n>Our approach decomposes the generation process into an Actor, which produces initial reasoning trajectories.<n>We show that Search-R2 consistently outperforms strong RAG and RL-based baselines across model scales.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-03T15:32:09Z)
• Adversarial Yet Cooperative: Multi-Perspective Reasoning in Retrieved-Augmented Language Models [72.4149653187766]
  We propose a Reasoner-Verifier framework named Adrialversa Reasoning RAG (ARR)<n>The Reasoner and Verifier engage in reasoning on retrieved evidence and critiquing each other's logic while being guided by process-aware advantage.<n> Experiments on multiple benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness of our method.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-08T06:57:03Z)
• Automatic Building Code Review: A Case Study [6.530899637501737]
  Building officials face labor-intensive, error-prone, and costly manual reviews of design documents as projects increase in size and complexity.<n>This study introduces a novel agent-driven framework that integrates BIM-based data extraction with automated verification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-03T00:30:14Z)
• Towards Self-Evolving Benchmarks: Synthesizing Agent Trajectories via Test-Time Exploration under Validate-by-Reproduce Paradigm [60.36837655498119]
  We propose a Trajectory-based validated-by-Reproducing Agent-benchmark Complexity Evolution framework.<n>This framework takes an original task from an existing benchmark and encourages agents to evolve it into a new task with higher difficulty.<n>Experiments on the GAIA benchmark demonstrate that the TRACE framework consistently enhances task complexity while improving the reliability of correctness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-01T01:52:52Z)
• VulAgent: Hypothesis-Validation based Multi-Agent Vulnerability Detection [55.957275374847484]
  VulAgent is a multi-agent vulnerability detection framework based on hypothesis validation.<n>It implements a semantics-sensitive, multi-view detection pipeline, each aligned to a specific analysis perspective.<n>On average, VulAgent improves overall accuracy by 6.6%, increases the correct identification rate of vulnerable--fixed code pairs by up to 450%, and reduces the false positive rate by about 36%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-15T02:25:38Z)
• CLATTER: Comprehensive Entailment Reasoning for Hallucination Detection [60.98964268961243]
  We propose that guiding models to perform a systematic and comprehensive reasoning process allows models to execute much finer-grained and accurate entailment decisions.<n>We define a 3-step reasoning process, consisting of (i) claim decomposition, (ii) sub-claim attribution and entailment classification, and (iii) aggregated classification, showing that such guided reasoning indeed yields improved hallucination detection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-05T17:02:52Z)
• GAM-Agent: Game-Theoretic and Uncertainty-Aware Collaboration for Complex Visual Reasoning [9.24980723036746]
  GAM-Agent is a game-theoretic multi-agent framework for enhancing vision-language reasoning.<n>It formulates the reasoning process as a non-zero-sum game between base agents--each specializing in visual perception subtasks--and a critical agent that verifies logic consistency and factual correctness.<n>Our approach is modular, scalable, and generalizable, offering a path toward reliable and explainable multi-agent multimodal reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-29T12:37:34Z)
• MA-RAG: Multi-Agent Retrieval-Augmented Generation via Collaborative Chain-of-Thought Reasoning [36.3918410061572]
  MA-RAG addresses the inherent ambiguities and reasoning challenges in complex information-seeking tasks.<n>Unlike conventional RAG methods that rely on end-to-end fine-tuning or isolated component enhancements, MA-RAG orchestrates a collaborative set of specialized AI agents.<n>Our results highlight the effectiveness of collaborative, modular reasoning in retrieval-augmented systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-26T15:05:18Z)
• CRAVE: A Conflicting Reasoning Approach for Explainable Claim Verification Using LLMs [15.170312674645535]
  CRAVE is a Conflicting Reasoning Approach for explainable claim VErification.<n>It can verify complex claims based on the conflicting rationales reasoned by large language models.<n>CRAVE achieves much better performance than state-of-the-art methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-21T07:20:31Z)
• Retrieval-Augmented Generation with Conflicting Evidence [57.66282463340297]
  Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly employing retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) to improve the factuality of their responses.<n>In practice, these systems often need to handle ambiguous user queries and potentially conflicting information from multiple sources.<n>We propose RAMDocs (Retrieval with Ambiguity and Misinformation in Documents), a new dataset that simulates complex and realistic scenarios for conflicting evidence for a user query.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-17T16:46:11Z)
• On the Brittle Foundations of ReAct Prompting for Agentic Large Language Models [16.701242561345786]
  The performance of Large Language Models (LLMs) is driven by the similarity between input example tasks and queries. Our investigation shows that the perceived reasoning abilities of LLMs stem from the exemplar-query similarity and approximate retrieval.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-22T20:05:49Z)
• Empirically Verifying Hypotheses Using Reinforcement Learning [58.09414653169534]
  This paper formulates hypothesis verification as an RL problem. We aim to build an agent that, given a hypothesis about the dynamics of the world, can take actions to generate observations which can help predict whether the hypothesis is true or false.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-29T01:01:10Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.