pith. sign in

arxiv: 2505.18596 · v4 · pith:ZO3UJDPGnew · submitted 2025-05-24 · 💻 cs.CL · cs.AI

Debate-to-Detect: Reformulating Misinformation Detection as a Real-World Debate with Large Language Models

classification 💻 cs.CL cs.AI
keywords debatedetectionmisinformationclassificationdebate-to-detectfact-checkinglanguagelarge
0
0 comments X
read the original 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. In response, we introduce Debate-to-Detect (D2D), a novel Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) framework that reformulates misinformation detection as a structured adversarial debate. Inspired by 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 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 interpretable misinformation detection. The code will be released publicly after the official publication.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. How Human Feedback Shapes AI-generated Community Notes

    cs.CY 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Human feedback improves AI-generated Community Notes but participation limits their adoption rate, with collaborative notes serving a complementary role to human and AI-only notes.

  2. When Misinformation Speaks and Converses: Rethinking Fact-Checking in Audio Platforms

    cs.CL 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Audio misinformation requires rethinking fact-checking pipelines due to its spoken and conversational properties that traditional text-based methods overlook.