Index |  Research ▾  |  Verification ▾  | About
SRCH:57F63271

What is the impact of adaptive retrieval strategies on the consistency and accuracy of answers generated by multi-agent debate

Submitted: 11 June 2026
Review score: 8.67/10
Verification: L2, Source-grounded claims
Gate status: Unverified
Quality tier: Flagship candidate
Verified claims: 12
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.20634914

Abstract

Abstract: The card game Hanabi is considered a strong medium for the testing and development of multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL) algorithms, due to its cooperative nature, partial observability, limited communication and remarkable complexity. Previous research efforts have explored the capabilities of MARL algorithms within Hanabi, focusing largely on advanced architecture design and algorithmic manipulations to achieve state-of-the-art performance for various number of cooperators. However, this often leads to complex solution strategies with high computational cost and requiring large amount

Research Question

What is the impact of adaptive retrieval strategies on the consistency and accuracy of answers generated by multi-agent debate systems when evaluated on the BIG-Bench Hard reasoning tasks?

Verification Level

Paper levelL2, Source-grounded claims
Source-grounded claims12
Claim record sourceparsed source sections

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

Truth-Engine Gate Verdict

StatusUnverified
GateGate 2 — Verification (formal proof or sandbox reproduction)
ReasonPublished before the Gate 2 verification pipeline was activated (2026-06-10). No formal proof or sandbox reproduction has been attempted for this record.

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

TierFlagship candidate
BasisReview score, verified-claim count, and public artifact coverage meet flagship-candidate thresholds.

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

Quality Dimensions

Evidence strength MEDIUM
Citation grounding MEDIUM
Uncertainty disclosure MEDIUM
Reproducibility status HIGH

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

Correction Record

StatusCURRENT
Correction count0
Manifest contractpaper-manifest-v1.1
Correction contractcorrection-record-v1

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

Provenance

PublisherAssignee Research
Public provenanceL4, External archival record
Report artifactAvailable
External recordRegistered
Claim lineage12 aggregate source-grounded claims
Review methodAutomated multi-reviewer assessment
Quality guideHow to read scores, claims, manifests, and evidence links
Provenance contractsource-provenance-v1
NoteMachine-generated synthesis of existing literature. Not primary research.