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

Courtroom-Style Multi-Agent Debate with Progressive RAG and Role-Switching for Controversial Claim Verification | Signal Canvas | ScienceToStartup

Page Freshness

Signal Canvas proof surface

Canonical route: /signal-canvas/courtroom-style-multi-agent-debate-with-progressive-rag-and-role-switching-for-controversial-claim-verification

stale

Proof freshness: stale
Proof status: unverified
Display score: 7/10
Last proof check: 2026-03-31
Score updated: 2026-04-02
Score fresh until: 2026-05-02
References: 32
Source count: 4
Coverage: 83%

This page is showing the last landed evidence receipt and score bundle because the latest proof data is outside the freshness window.

Agent Handoff

Canonical ID courtroom-style-multi-agent-debate-with-progressive-rag-and-role-switching-for-controversial-claim-verification | Route /signal-canvas/courtroom-style-multi-agent-debate-with-progressive-rag-and-role-switching-for-controversial-claim-verification

REST example

curl https://sciencetostartup.com/api/v1/agent-handoff/signal-canvas/courtroom-style-multi-agent-debate-with-progressive-rag-and-role-switching-for-controversial-claim-verification

MCP example

{
  "tool": "search_signal_canvas",
  "arguments": {
    "mode": "paper",
    "paper_ref": "courtroom-style-multi-agent-debate-with-progressive-rag-and-role-switching-for-controversial-claim-verification",
    "query_text": "Summarize Courtroom-Style Multi-Agent Debate with Progressive RAG and Role-Switching for Controversial Claim Verification"
  }
}

source_context

{
  "surface": "signal_canvas",
  "mode": "paper",
  "query": "Courtroom-Style Multi-Agent Debate with Progressive RAG and Role-Switching for Controversial Claim Verification",
  "normalized_query": "2603.28488",
  "route": "/signal-canvas/courtroom-style-multi-agent-debate-with-progressive-rag-and-role-switching-for-controversial-claim-verification",
  "paper_ref": "courtroom-style-multi-agent-debate-with-progressive-rag-and-role-switching-for-controversial-claim-verification",
  "topic_slug": null,
  "benchmark_ref": null,
  "dataset_ref": null
}

Evidence Receipt

Route status: building

Claims: 8

References: 32

Proof: Verification pending

Freshness state: computing

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

PDF: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2603.28488v1

Repository: https://github.com/mnc13/PROClaim

Source count: 4

Coverage: 83%

Last proof check: 2026-03-31T20:30:22.098Z

Signal Canvas receipt window

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

/buildability/courtroom-style-multi-agent-debate-with-progressive-rag-and-role-switching-for-controversial-claim-verification

Build Nowready

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

Verdict

Preparing verified analysis

GitHub Code Pulse

Stars

Health

Last commit

3/26/2026

Forks

Open repository

Claim map

Strong 8Mixed 0Weak 0

Evidencepartial
PROClaim achieves 81.7% accuracy, outperforming standard multi-agent debate by 10.0 percentage points
Implicationpartial
Explicitly stated in the abstract with a specific numeric result.
Verificationpartial
partial
Evidencepartial
with P-RAG driving the primary performance gains (+7.5 pp)
Implicationpartial
Directly stated in the abstract with a specific numeric attribution.
Verificationpartial
partial
Evidencepartial
our approach introduces explicit roles (Plaintiff, Defense, Judge, Critic, and Expert Witness), evidence admission protocols, and multi-stage deliberation.
Implicationpartial
Explicitly described in the introduction and system overview as a core methodological component.
Verificationpartial
partial
Evidencepartial
Central to the framework is Progressive Retrieval-Augmented Generation (P-RAG), which performs iterative, query-adaptive retrieval to continuously expand and refine the evidence
Implicationpartial
Directly stated as the central function of the P-RAG component.
Verificationpartial
partial
Evidencepartial
Furthermore, we employ evidence negotiation, self-reflection, and heterogeneous multi-judge aggregation to enforce calibration, robustness, and diversity.
Implicationpartial
Stated in the abstract as key features of the proposed approach.
Verificationpartial
partial
Evidencepartial
We ultimately demonstrate that structural deliberation and model heterogeneity effectively mitigate systematic biases
Implicationpartial
Directly stated as a demonstrated outcome in the abstract.
Verificationpartial
partial
Evidencepartial
prior studies show that unstructured debate often leads to premature convergence, shared bias reinforcement, and limited evidence exploration
Implicationpartial
Explicitly stated as a limitation of prior work in the introduction.
Verificationpartial
partial
Evidencepartial
Only items with novelty ≥ 0.20 are admitted. This threshold is selected as a Redundancy-Noise Trade-off Heuristic
Implicationpartial
Explicitly stated as a specific technical parameter in the system description.
Verificationpartial
partial

Author intelligence and commercialization panels stay hidden until the proof receipt is verified, cites at least 3 references, includes at least 2 sources, and clears 50% coverage. The paper narrative and citation surfaces remain public while verification is pending.

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

Use Signal Canvas as the narrative proof surface

Use this Signal Canvas via API or MCP

Signal Canvas proof surface