From Argument Components to Graphs: A Multi-Agent Debate with Confidence Gating for Argument Relations

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly assessed and utilized in the field of Argument Mining (AM), thanks to their strong general reasoning capabilities. However, standard training-free models often miss sophisticated details, specifically in contexts where two parts of the text have to be analyzed together. Furthermore, self-correction mechanisms tend to reinforce initial hallucinations in reasoning. Overcoming these limitations typically requires expensive, domain-specific supervised fine-tuning. Recent work has shown that a multi-agent paradigm can address such weaknesses for the component classification task through dialectical refinement with a Proponent-Opponent-Judge architecture, setting a promising direction for training-free approaches in the field. In this paper, we extend and evaluate this framework on the Argument Relation Identification and Classification (ARIC) task, reformulating it as a debate over component pairs. Besides that, we introduce a confidence gating mechanism that enables debating only on the uncertain cases and accepting the initial prediction when confidence is high. On the UKP Argument Annotated Essays v2 corpus, we demonstrate that the selective debate achieves the highest Macro F1 among all training-free methods, while debate over all samples degrades performance below that of one of the baselines. All generative approaches also outperform fine-tuned RoBERTa models on Macro F1, suggesting that the under-representation of the Attack class was more damaging to supervised fine-tuning than to inference-only models. Additionally, our framework produces human-readable debate transcripts, offering interpretability absent from both single-agent and supervised classifiers.

Decoupling Thought from Speech: Knowledge-Grounded Counterfactual Reasoning for Resilient Multi-Agent Argumentation

Multi-agent debate frameworks have been shown to improve large language model performance in convergent tasks, but they are currently optimized in a way that heavily favors final output accuracy rather than stability of the process. During long-horizon exchanges reactive systems under sustained perturbations often experience logic degradation, argument repetition, and role drift. To structurally prevent the identity loss and maintain the process fidelity, we introduce Knowledge-Grounded Counterfactual Reasoning (KG-CFR), a dual-stage architecture that enforces a strict separation of concerns between a private, retrieval-augmented planning buffer, and a public execution layer. We assess this system in Dynamic Resource Allocation under Uncertainty (DRAU), a dedicated 1v1v1 environment, introducing diversity as distinct from standard debate settings. Over 270 completely factorial crisis simulation trajectories with stochastic environmental shocks, KG-CFR prevents judge-detected critical post-shock degradation (defined as a quality shift, $Δ\le -0.20$) in more than 95% of perturbed runs, increasing the overall argument quality from 0.694 to 0.822. Our primary contribution is the demonstration of architectural decoupling being an important factor of systemic resilience enhancement under sustained pressure without quality loss. Furthermore, we introduce custom vector metrics for discourse divergence and plan-execution alignment that provide strong, directionally consistent evidence of operational stability. Our ablation experiments suggest that the proper doctrinal grounding can be an equally important factor for argument quality, as the prospective planning. KG-CFR, according to our initial metric evaluations, reduces semantic looping, by preserving the agent's consistency with the original plan.

Consensus is Strategically Insufficient: Reasoning-Trace Disagreement as a Knowledge-Representation Signal

Multi-agent systems are commonly designed to reduce disagreement through voting, consensus protocols, debate, or fault-tolerant aggregation. We argue that this objective is insufficient for value-laden tasks, where disagreement may reflect genuine normative uncertainty rather than agent error. Building on prior work on reasoning-trace disagreement in human-AI collaborative moderation, we propose a knowledge-representation layer in which reasoning traces and agent decisions are abstracted into symbolic disagreement states. Given agents producing explicit reasoning traces and binary decisions, we distinguish four states according to reasoning similarity and conclusion agreement: convergent agreement, divergent agreement, convergent disagreement and divergent disagreement. These states support defeasible strategic routing rules. We instantiate the framework in content moderation and argue that disagreement-aware routing provides a bridge between sub-symbolic LLM deliberation and symbolic knowledge representation for multi-agent strategic reasoning.

Choosing the Lens: Strategic Perspective Activation in Context-Dependent Argumentation

The same arguments often need to be evaluated under different external regimes. An agent with influence over the regime has a strategic lever that standard formalisms do not directly capture. We introduce context-dependent argumentation frameworks (CDAFs), an extension of Dung's theory in which a defeat function determines, per context, which attacks succeed. A perspective-labeled specialisation derives the defeat function from a relevance set $ρ$ and a priority $π$. The relevance set is the agent's action space. In a small worked example, the agent's target argument is rejected under every full-relevance injective priority, yet accepted under partial activations, one of which no VAF audience can mirror. We define the corresponding decision problem, ACTIVATION-MANIPULATION, and record baseline complexity bounds. Tight bounds and multi-agent variants are left open.

MultiHedge: Adaptive Coordination via Retrieval-Augmented Control

Decision-making under changing conditions remains a fundamental challenge in many real-world systems. Existing approaches often fail to generalize across shifting regimes and exhibit unstable behavior under uncertainty. This raises the research question: can retrieval-augmented LLM coordination improve the robustness of modular decision pipelines? We propose MultiHedge, a hybrid architecture where an LLM produces structured allocation decisions conditioned on retrieved historical precedents, and execution is grounded in canonical option strategies. In a controlled evaluation using U.S. equities, we compare MultiHedge to rule-based and learning-based baselines. The key result is that memory-augmented retrieval confers greater robustness and stability than increasing model scale alone. Our paper contributes a controlled computational study showing that memory and architectural design play a central role in robustness in modular decision systems.

Rashomon Memory: Towards Argumentation-Driven Retrieval for Multi-Perspective Agent Memory

AI agents operating over extended time horizons accumulate experiences that serve multiple concurrent goals, and must often maintain conflicting interpretations of the same events. A concession during a client negotiation encodes as a ``trust-building investment'' for one strategic goal and a ``contractual liability'' for another. Current memory architectures assume a single correct encoding, or at best support multiple views over unified storage. We propose Rashomon Memory: an architecture where parallel goal-conditioned agents encode experiences according to their priorities and negotiate at query time through argumentation. Each perspective maintains its own ontology and knowledge graph. At retrieval, perspectives propose interpretations, critique each other's proposals using asymmetric domain knowledge, and Dung's argumentation semantics determines which proposals survive. The resulting attack graph is itself an explanation: it records which interpretation was selected, which alternatives were considered, and on what grounds they were rejected. We present a proof-of-concept showing that retrieval modes (selection, composition, conflict surfacing) emerge from attack graph topology, and that the conflict surfacing mode, where the system reports genuine disagreement rather than forcing resolution, lets decision-makers see the underlying interpretive conflict directly.

Multi-Agent Dialectical Refinement for Enhanced Argument Classification

Argument Mining (AM) is a foundational technology for automated writing evaluation, yet traditional supervised approaches rely heavily on expensive, domain-specific fine-tuning. While Large Language Models (LLMs) offer a training-free alternative, they often struggle with structural ambiguity, failing to distinguish between similar components like Claims and Premises. Furthermore, single-agent self-correction mechanisms often suffer from sycophancy, where the model reinforces its own initial errors rather than critically evaluating them. We introduce MAD-ACC (Multi-Agent Debate for Argument Component Classification), a framework that leverages dialectical refinement to resolve classification uncertainty. MAD-ACC utilizes a Proponent-Opponent-Judge model where agents defend conflicting interpretations of ambiguous text, exposing logical nuances that single-agent models miss. Evaluation on the UKP Student Essays corpus demonstrates that MAD-ACC achieves a Macro F1 score of 85.7%, significantly outperforming single-agent reasoning baselines, without requiring domain-specific training. Additionally, unlike "black-box" classifiers, MAD-ACC's dialectical approach offers a transparent and explainable alternative by generating human-readable debate transcripts that explain the reasoning behind decisions.

Heterogeneous Debate Engine: Identity-Grounded Cognitive Architecture for Resilient LLM-Based Ethical Tutoring

Large Language Models (LLMs) are being increasingly used as autonomous agents in complex reasoning tasks, opening the niche for dialectical interactions. However, Multi-Agent systems implemented with systematically unconstrained systems systematically undergo semantic drift and logical deterioration and thus can hardly be used in providing ethical tutoring where a precise answer is required. Current simulation often tends to degenerate into dialectical stagnation, the agents degenerate into recursive concurrence or circular arguments. A critical challenge remains: how to enforce doctrinal fidelity without suppressing the generative flexibility required for dialectical reasoning? To address this niche, we contribute the Heterogeneous Debate Engine (HDE), a cognitive architecture that combines Identity-Grounded Retrieval-Augmented Generation (ID-RAG) for doctrinal fidelity and Heuristic Theory of Mind for strategic opponent modeling. Our evaluation shows that architectural heterogeneity is a crucial variable to stability: contrary doctrinal initializations (e.g., Deontology vs. Utilitarianism) have increased the Argument Complexity Scores of students by an order of magnitude, over baselines. These findings validate the effectiveness of ID-RAG and Heuristic ToM as architectural requirements in maintaining high-fidelity (adversarial) pedagogy.

A Natural Language Agentic Approach to Study Affective Polarization

Affective polarization has been central to political and social studies, with growing focus on social media, where partisan divisions are often exacerbated. Real-world studies tend to have limited scope, while simulated studies suffer from insufficient high-quality training data, as manually labeling posts is labor-intensive and prone to subjective biases. The lack of adequate tools to formalize different definitions of affective polarization across studies complicates result comparison and hinders interoperable frameworks. We present a multi-agent model providing a comprehensive approach to studying affective polarization in social media. To operationalize our framework, we develop a platform leveraging large language models (LLMs) to construct virtual communities where agents engage in discussions. We showcase the potential of our platform by (1) analyzing questions related to affective polarization, as explored in social science literature, providing a fresh perspective on this phenomenon, and (2) introducing scenarios that allow observation and measurement of polarization at different levels of granularity and abstraction. Experiments show that our platform is a flexible tool for computational studies of complex social dynamics such as affective polarization. It leverages advanced agent models to simulate rich, context-sensitive interactions and systematically explore research questions traditionally addressed through human-subject studies.

On Theoretically-Driven LLM Agents for Multi-Dimensional Discourse Analysis

Identifying the strategic uses of reformulation in discourse remains a key challenge for computational argumentation. While LLMs can detect surface-level similarity, they often fail to capture the pragmatic functions of rephrasing, such as its role within rhetorical discourse. This paper presents a comparative multi-agent framework designed to quantify the benefits of incorporating explicit theoretical knowledge for this task. We utilise an dataset of annotated political debates to establish a new standard encompassing four distinct rephrase functions: Deintensification, Intensification, Specification, Generalisation, and Other, which covers all remaining types (D-I-S-G-O). We then evaluate two parallel LLM-based agent systems: one enhanced by argumentation theory via Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), and an identical zero-shot baseline. The results reveal a clear performance gap: the RAG-enhanced agents substantially outperform the baseline across the board, with particularly strong advantages in detecting Intensification and Generalisation context, yielding an overall Macro F1-score improvement of nearly 30\%. Our findings provide evidence that theoretical grounding is not only beneficial but essential for advancing beyond mere paraphrase detection towards function-aware analysis of argumentative discourse. This comparative multi-agent architecture represents a step towards scalable, theoretically informed computational tools capable of identifying rhetorical strategies in contemporary discourse.