Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Breaking Event Rumor Detection via Stance-Separated Multi-Agent Debate

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2412.04859 v1 pith:63RNDQDK submitted 2024-12-06 cs.CL cs.MA

classification cs.CLcs.MA
keywords breakingdetectionclaimdebatellmsrumorconsensusevent
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

The rapid spread of rumors on social media platforms during breaking events severely hinders the dissemination of the truth. Previous studies reveal that the lack of annotated resources hinders the direct detection of unforeseen breaking events not covered in yesterday's news. Leveraging large language models (LLMs) for rumor detection holds significant promise. However, it is challenging for LLMs to provide comprehensive responses to complex or controversial issues due to limited diversity. In this work, we propose the Stance Separated Multi-Agent Debate (S2MAD) to address this issue. Specifically, we firstly introduce Stance Separation, categorizing comments as either supporting or opposing the original claim. Subsequently, claims are classified as subjective or objective, enabling agents to generate reasonable initial viewpoints with different prompt strategies for each type of claim. Debaters then follow specific instructions through multiple rounds of debate to reach a consensus. If a consensus is not reached, a judge agent evaluates the opinions and delivers a final verdict on the claim's veracity. Extensive experiments conducted on two real-world datasets demonstrate that our proposed model outperforms state-of-the-art methods in terms of performance and effectively improves the performance of LLMs in breaking event rumor detection.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Multi-Agent Debate Strategies: Survey, Taxonomy, and Challenges

    cs.SE 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    A systematic review of 141 papers derives a three-axis taxonomy of multi-agent debate design (participants, interaction, agreement) and shows the field has converged on a narrow default pattern.

  2. CortexDebate: Debating Sparsely and Equally for Multi-Agent Debate

    cs.AI 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    CortexDebate prunes the multi-agent debate graph every round using a McKinsey-style trust score per directed link, reporting accuracy gains over full-debate baselines on eight datasets with shorter per-agent contexts.

Pith tools