Multi-Agent Verification Framework: Eliminating Large Model Hallucinations and Logical Fallacies Through Hierarchical Agent Collaboration

This article introduces an innovative multi-agent RAG framework that effectively reduces hallucinations and logical fallacies in large language models during complex reasoning through the hierarchical collaboration of six specialized agents: query understanding, multi-path retrieval, context validation, generation, critique, and evaluation. The core of this framework lies in specialized division of labor and iterative verification, providing an engineering quality control approach for building trustworthy AI systems.

The hallucination problem of large language models (LLMs) in complex reasoning tasks is a core challenge in the AI field. Even with the introduction of Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) technology, models may still produce conclusions inconsistent with evidence or break logical chains. The traditional single-round generation mode lacks a reasoning consistency verification mechanism, making it difficult to guarantee output quality. Existing RAG improvement methods have shortcomings in query planning, evidence screening, and weak answer retries, especially failing to effectively verify the correctness of intermediate steps in multi-step reasoning scenarios.

The core idea of this framework is specialized division of labor and iterative verification, breaking down the RAG process into six collaborative specialized agents, each focusing on quality control of a specific link. Advantages include: modular verification (early problem detection), feedback loop (critique agent triggers retries), and complete evidence chain (full traceability).

1. Query Understanding Agent: Converts natural language queries into structured retrieval requirements, separating surface expressions from actual intentions;
2. Multi-Path Retrieval System: Hybrid strategy of FAISS semantic retrieval + keyword retrieval to avoid blind spots of single retrieval;
3. Context Validation Agent: Filters noise in retrieved evidence to ensure context relevance and reliability;
4. Generation Agent: Uses llama-3.3-70b-versatile to generate initial answers;
5. Critique Agent: Examines logical fallacies, evidence inconsistencies, etc., in outputs and triggers feedback retries;
6. Evaluation Agent: Makes final judgments based on all information to ensure sufficient verification of results.

Technical Architecture: Implemented in Python, including components such as agents (each agent module), data (knowledge base), database (FAISS vector database), pipeline (process orchestration), etc. Agents are called via Groq API, and FAISS cooperates with sentence-transformers to ensure privacy and efficiency. Workflow Example: User input → Query understanding → Multi-path retrieval → Context validation → Generation → Critique review → Feedback optimization (if needed) → Final evaluation → Output.

Future Directions: Migrate to LangGraph to support complex branching logic; introduce confidence scoring; add domain-specific fallacy detection rules; implement human-machine collaboration interfaces; establish a case library. Practical Significance: Provides a reference architecture for trustworthy AI systems in high-precision fields such as healthcare, law, and finance; demonstrates the idea of solving AI reliability issues through system design rather than pure model improvement, with lasting practical value.