Michał Wawer

Maciej Uberna, Michał Wawer, Jarosław A. Chudziak et al.

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.

Michał Wawer, Jarosław A. Chudziak

When LLM-based multi-agent systems disagree, current practice treats this as noise to be resolved through consensus. We propose it can be signal. We focus on hate speech moderation, a domain where judgments depend on cultural context and individual value weightings, producing high legitimate disagreement among human annotators. We hypothesize that convergent disagreement, where agents reason similarly but conclude differently, indicates genuine value pluralism that humans also struggle to resolve. Using the Measuring Hate Speech corpus, we embed reasoning traces from five perspective-differentiated agents and classify disagreement patterns using a four-category taxonomy based on reasoning similarity and conclusion agreement. We find that raw reasoning divergence weakly predicts human annotator conflict, but the structure of agent discord carries additional signal: cases where agents agree on a verdict show markedly lower human disagreement than cases where they do not, with large effect sizes (d>0.8) surviving correction for multiple comparisons. Our taxonomy-based ordering correlates with human disagreement patterns. These preliminary findings motivate a shift from consensus-seeking to uncertainty-surfacing multi-agent design, where disagreement structure - not magnitude - guides when human judgment is needed.