Debate-to-Detect: Reformulating Misinformation Detection as a Real-World Debate with Large Language Models
Chen Han, Wenzhen Zheng, Xijin Tang
Abstract
The proliferation of misinformation in digital platforms reveals the limitations of traditional detection methods, which mostly rely on static classification and fail to capture the intricate process of real-world fact-checking. Despite advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) that enhance automated reasoning, their application to misinformation detection remains hindered by issues of logical inconsistency and superficial verification. Inspired by the idea that "Truth Becomes Clearer Through Debate", we introduce Debate-to-Detect (D2D), a novel Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) framework that reformulates misinformation detection as a structured adversarial debate. Based on fact-checking workflows, D2D assigns domain-specific profiles to each agent and orchestrates a five-stage debate process, including Opening Statement, Rebuttal, Free Debate, Closing Statement, and Judgment. To transcend traditional binary classification, D2D introduces a multi-dimensional evaluation mechanism that assesses each claim across five distinct dimensions: Factuality, Source Reliability, Reasoning Quality, Clarity, and Ethics. Experiments with GPT-4o on two fakenews datasets demonstrate significant improvements over baseline methods, and the case study highlight D2D's capability to iteratively refine evidence while improving decision transparency, representing a substantial advancement towards robust and interpretable misinformation detection. Our code is available at Debate-to-Detect.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 0fa961c1-2868-4865-a6aa-3346dda4a53aCited by top-tier papers2
- When Misinformation Speaks and Converses: Rethinking Fact-Checking in Audio PlatformsChaewan Chun, Delvin Ce Zhang, Dongwon LeeACL 2026
- NBCG: Nash-Bargained Causal Game for Long-Tailed Multi-Label NLPJing Yang, Jusheng Zhang, Keze WangICML 2026
Builds on12
- Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language ModelsJason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 22,562 citations
- Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-FeedbackAman Madaan, Niket Tandon, Prakhar Gupta, Skyler Hallinan et al.NeurIPS 2023 · 4,972 citations
- Improving Factuality and Reasoning in Language Models through Multiagent DebateYilun Du, Shuang Li, Antonio Torralba, Joshua B. Tenenbaum et al.ICML 2024 · 1,562 citations
- ChatEval: Towards Better LLM-based Evaluators through Multi-Agent DebateChi-Min Chan, Weize Chen, Yusheng Su, Jianxuan Yu et al.ICLR 2024 · 871 citations
- CRITIC: Large Language Models Can Self-Correct with Tool-Interactive CritiquingZhibin Gou, Zhihong Shao, Yeyun Gong, Yelong Shen et al.ICLR 2024 · 699 citations
Related papers
- The Truth Becomes Clearer Through Debate! Multi-Agent Systems with Large Language Models Unmask Fake NewsYuhan Liu, Yuxuan Liu, Xiaoqing Zhang, Xiuying Chen et al.SIGIR 2025 · 20 citations
- MAR: Metacognitive Agentic Reasoning for Multimodal Fake News DetectionWenyu Chen, Hengbing Dong, Junhao Wa, Ping Wei et al.KDD 2026
- M-MAD: Multidimensional Multi-Agent Debate for Advanced Machine Translation EvaluationZhaopeng Feng, Jiayuan Su, Jiamei Zheng, Jiahan Ren et al.ACL 2025
- MAD-Logic: Multi-Agent Debate Enhances Symbolic Translation and ReasoningHaocheng Yang, Fengxiang Cheng, Tianjun Yao, Mengyue Yang et al.ICLR 2026
- Multi-Agent Debate with Memory MaskingHongduan Tian, Xiao Feng, Ziyuan Zhao, Xiangyu Zhu et al.ICLR 2026 · 7 citations
