Tool-MAD: A Multi-Agent Debate Framework for Fact Verification with Diverse Tool Augmentation and Adaptive Retrieval

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.04742v1
• Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2026 09:07:41 GMT
• Title: Tool-MAD: A Multi-Agent Debate Framework for Fact Verification with Diverse Tool Augmentation and Adaptive Retrieval
• Authors: Seyeon Jeong, Yeonjun Choi, JongWook Kim, Beakcheol Jang,
• Abstract summary: Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) systems aim to improve answer accuracy by enabling multiple LLM agents to engage in dialogue.<n>Existing MAD frameworks primarily rely on internal knowledge or static documents, making them vulnerable to hallucinations.<n>We propose Tool-MAD, a multi-agent debate framework that enhances factual verification by assigning each agent a distinct external tool.
• Score: 10.62333858188658
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: 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.

Related papers

• MAS-ProVe: Understanding the Process Verification of Multi-Agent Systems [59.20800753428596]
  We present MAS-ProVe, a systematic empirical study of process verification for multi-agent systems (MAS)<n>Our study spans three verification paradigms (LLM-as-a-Judge, reward models, and process reward models)<n>We find that process-level verification does not consistently improve performance and frequently exhibits high variance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-03T03:30:36Z)
• DynaDebate: Breaking Homogeneity in Multi-Agent Debate with Dynamic Path Generation [47.62978918069135]
  We introduce Dynamic Multi-Agent Debate (DynaDebate), which enhances the effectiveness of multi-agent debate through three key mechanisms.<n>Extensive experiments demonstrate that DynaDebate achieves superior performance across various benchmarks, surpassing existing state-of-the-art MAD methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-09T12:01:33Z)
• M3MAD-Bench: Are Multi-Agent Debates Really Effective Across Domains and Modalities? [37.902089112579]
  Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) orchestrates multiple agents through structured debate to improve answer quality and support complex reasoning.<n>Existing research on MAD suffers from two fundamental limitations: evaluations are conducted under fragmented and inconsistent settings, hindering fair comparison.<n>We introduce M3MAD-Bench, a unified benchmark for evaluating MAD methods across Multi-domain tasks, Multi-modal inputs, and Multi-dimensional metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-06T09:33:48Z)
• DART: Leveraging Multi-Agent Disagreement for Tool Recruitment in Multimodal Reasoning [84.25936790759484]
  We introduce DART, a multi-agent framework that uses disagreements between multiple debating visual agents to identify useful visual tools.<n>These tools allow for fruitful multi-agent discussion by introducing new information.<n>Dart adapts well to new tools in applied domains, with a 1.3% improvement on the M3D medical dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-08T03:33:38Z)
• iMAD: Intelligent Multi-Agent Debate for Efficient and Accurate LLM Inference [11.86992814928132]
  Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) has emerged as a promising framework that engages multiple agents in structured debates.<n>We propose intelligent Multi-Agent Debate (iMAD), a token-efficient framework that selectively triggers MAD only when it is likely to be beneficial.<n>We show that iMAD significantly reduces token usage (by up to 92%) while also improving final answer accuracy (by up to 13.5%)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-14T13:50:51Z)
• MADIAVE: Multi-Agent Debate for Implicit Attribute Value Extraction [52.89860691282002]
  Implicit Attribute Value Extraction (AVE) is essential for accurately representing products in e-commerce.<n>Despite advances in multimodal large language models (MLLMs), implicit AVE remains challenging due to the complexity of multidimensional data.<n>We introduce textscmodelname, a multi-agent debate framework that employs multiple MLLM agents to iteratively refine inferences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-07T06:27:42Z)
• How Can Input Reformulation Improve Tool Usage Accuracy in a Complex Dynamic Environment? A Study on $τ$-bench [58.114899897566964]
  In a multi-turn conversational environment, large language models (LLMs) often struggle with consistent reasoning and adherence to domain-specific policies.<n>We propose the Input-Reformulation Multi-Agent (IRMA) framework, which automatically reformulates user queries augmented with relevant domain rules.<n>IRMA significantly outperforms ReAct, Function Calling, and Self-Reflection by 16.1%, 12.7%, and 19.1%, respectively.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-28T15:57:33Z)
• Revisiting Multi-Agent Debate as Test-Time Scaling: A Systematic Study of Conditional Effectiveness [50.29739337771454]
  Multi-agent debate (MAD) approaches offer improved reasoning, robustness, and diverse perspectives over monolithic models.<n>This paper conceptualizes MAD as a test-time computational scaling technique, distinguished by collaborative refinement and diverse exploration capabilities.<n>We conduct a comprehensive empirical investigation comparing MAD with strong self-agent test-time scaling baselines on mathematical reasoning and safety-related tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-29T01:02:55Z)
• Is Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) the Silver Bullet? An Empirical Analysis of MAD in Code Summarization and Translation [10.038721196640864]
  Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) systems enable structured debates among Large Language Models (LLMs)<n> MAD promotes divergent thinking through role-specific agents, dynamic interactions, and structured decision-making.<n>This study investigates MAD's effectiveness on two Software Engineering (SE) tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-15T07:30:37Z)
• Stop Overvaluing Multi-Agent Debate -- We Must Rethink Evaluation and Embrace Model Heterogeneity [20.408720462383158]
  Multi-agent debate (MAD) has gained significant attention as a promising line of research to improve the factual accuracy and reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs)<n>Despite its conceptual appeal, current MAD research suffers from critical limitations in evaluation practices.<n>This paper presents a systematic evaluation of 5 representative MAD methods across 9 benchmarks using 4 foundational models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-12T21:01:10Z)
• MAD-Sherlock: Multi-Agent Debate for Visual Misinformation Detection [36.12673167913763]
  We introduce MAD-Sherlock, a multi-agent debate system for out-of-context misinformation detection.<n> MAD-Sherlock frames detection as a multi-agent debate, reflecting the diverse and conflicting discourse found online.<n>Our framework is domain- and time-agnostic, requiring no finetuning, yet achieves state-of-the-art accuracy with in-depth explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-26T10:34:22Z)
• Learning to Break: Knowledge-Enhanced Reasoning in Multi-Agent Debate System [16.830182915504555]
  Multi-agent debate system (MAD) imitates the process of human discussion in pursuit of truth. It is challenging to make various agents perform right and highly consistent cognition due to their limited and different knowledge backgrounds. We propose a novel underlineMulti-underlineAgent underlineDebate with underlineKnowledge-underlineEnhanced framework to promote the system to find the solution.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-08T06:22:12Z)

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.