Impact of Debating Agent Count on Robustness and Factual Consistency in Tool-Augmented Multi-Hop Systems

Abstract

Abstract: Multi-hop question answering is a knowledge-intensive complex problem. Large Language Models (LLMs) use their Chain of Thoughts (CoT) capability to reason complex problems step by step, and retrieval-augmentation can effectively alleviate factual errors caused by outdated and unknown knowledge in LLMs. Recent works have introduced retrieval-augmentation in the CoT reasoning to solve multi-hop question answering. However, these chain methods have the following problems: 1) Retrieved irrelevant paragraphs may mislead the reasoning; 2) An error in the chain structure may lead to a cascade of erro

Research Question

What is the impact of varying the number of debating agents on the robustness and factual consistency of tool-augmented multi-agent systems when evaluated on complex multi-hop question datasets?

Verification Level

Descriptive public verification status only; aggregate claim counts are public, but individual claim records are not exposed here.

Truth-Engine Gate Verdict

This record has not completed Gate 2 of the verification pipeline (a type-checked Lean4 proof for mathematical claims, or a sealed-sandbox reproduction for empirical claims). It is a literature synthesis only. VERIFIED requires an attached reproducible artifact (Lean4 proof source, or repro script and results) before this status can be set; it is not derived from review score or claim count.

Quality Tier

Descriptive public triage only; this tier does not alter current publication or DOI behavior.

Quality Dimensions

Automated triage signals derived from public fields; not human peer review or independent validation.

Correction Record

Public corrections are additive records. Current status does not claim the synthesis is error-free.

Provenance