Jarosław A. Chudziak

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.

Jakub Masłowski, Jarosław A. Chudziak

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.

Albert Sadowski, Jarosław A. Chudziak

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.

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.

Jakub Bąba, Jarosław A. Chudziak

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.