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.

Structured Decomposition for LLM Reasoning: Cross-Domain Validation and Semantic Web Integration

Rule-based reasoning over natural language input arises in domains where decisions must be auditable and justifiable: clinical protocols specify eligibility criteria in prose, evidence rules define admissibility through textual conditions, and scientific standards dictate methodological requirements. Applying rules to such inputs demands both interpretive flexibility and formal guarantees. Large language models (LLMs) provide flexibility but cannot ensure consistent rule application; symbolic systems provide guarantees but require structured input. This paper presents an integration pattern that combines these strengths: LLMs serve as ontology population engines, translating unstructured text into ABox assertions according to expert-authored TBox specifications, while SWRL-based reasoners apply rules with deterministic guarantees. The framework decomposes reasoning into entity identification, assertion extraction, and symbolic verification, with task definitions grounded in OWL 2 ontologies. Experiments across three domains (legal hearsay determination, scientific method-task application, clinical trial eligibility) and eleven language models validate the approach. Structured decomposition achieves statistically significant improvements over few-shot prompting in aggregate, with gains observed across all three domains. An ablation study confirms that symbolic verification provides substantial benefit beyond structured prompting alone. The populated ABox integrates with standard semantic web tooling for inspection and querying, positioning the framework for richer inference patterns that simpler formalisms cannot express.

On the Role of Contextual Information and Ego States in LLM Agent Behavior for Transactional Analysis Dialogues

LLM-powered agents are now used in many areas, from customer support to education, and there is increasing interest in their ability to act more like humans. This includes fields such as social, political, and psychological research, where the goal is to model group dynamics and social behavior. However, current LLM agents often lack the psychological depth and consistency needed to capture the real patterns of human thinking. They usually provide direct or statistically likely answers, but they miss the deeper goals, emotional conflicts, and motivations that drive real human interactions. This paper proposes a Multi-Agent System (MAS) inspired by Transactional Analysis (TA) theory. In the proposed system, each agent is divided into three ego states - Parent, Adult, and Child. The ego states are treated as separate knowledge structures with their own perspectives and reasoning styles. To enrich their response process, they have access to an information retrieval mechanism that allows them to retrieve relevant contextual information from their vector stores. This architecture is evaluated through ablation tests in a simulated dialogue scenario, comparing agents with and without information retrieval. The results are promising and open up new directions for exploring how psychologically grounded structures can enrich agent behavior. The contribution is an agent architecture that integrates Transactional Analysis theory with contextual information retrieval to enhance the realism of LLM-based multi-agent simulations.

Collaborative LLM Agents for C4 Software Architecture Design Automation

Software architecture design is a fundamental part of creating every software system. Despite its importance, producing a C4 software architecture model, the preferred notation for such architecture, remains manual and time-consuming. We introduce an LLM-based multi-agent system that automates this task by simulating a dialogue between role-specific experts who analyze requirements and generate the Context, Container, and Component views of the C4 model. Quality is assessed with a hybrid evaluation framework: deterministic checks for structural and syntactic integrity and C4 rule consistency, plus semantic and qualitative scoring via an LLM-as-a-Judge approach. Tested on five canonical system briefs, the workflow demonstrates fast C4 model creation, sustains high compilation success, and delivers semantic fidelity. A comparison of four state-of-the-art LLMs shows different strengths relevant to architectural design. This study contributes to automated software architecture design and its evaluation methods.

On Evaluating Loss Functions for Stock Ranking: An Empirical Analysis With Transformer Model

Quantitative trading strategies rely on accurately ranking stocks to identify profitable investments. Effective portfolio management requires models that can reliably order future stock returns. Transformer models are promising for understanding financial time series, but how different training loss functions affect their ability to rank stocks well is not yet fully understood. Financial markets are challenging due to their changing nature and complex relationships between stocks. Standard loss functions, which aim for simple prediction accuracy, often aren't enough. They don't directly teach models to learn the correct order of stock returns. While many advanced ranking losses exist from fields such as information retrieval, there hasn't been a thorough comparison to see how well they work for ranking financial returns, especially when used with modern Transformer models for stock selection. This paper addresses this gap by systematically evaluating a diverse set of advanced loss functions including pointwise, pairwise, listwise for daily stock return forecasting to facilitate rank-based portfolio selection on S&P 500 data. We focus on assessing how each loss function influences the model's ability to discern profitable relative orderings among assets. Our research contributes a comprehensive benchmark revealing how different loss functions impact a model's ability to learn cross-sectional and temporal patterns crucial for portfolio selection, thereby offering practical guidance for optimizing ranking-based trading strategies.