Daily Papers

Extracting structured event knowledge, including event triggers and corresponding arguments, from military texts is fundamental to many applications, such as intelligence analysis and decision assistance. However, event extraction in the military field faces the data scarcity problem, which impedes the research of event extraction models in this domain. To alleviate this problem, we propose CMNEE, a large-scale, document-level open-source Chinese Military News Event Extraction dataset. It contains 17,000 documents and 29,223 events, which are all manually annotated based on a pre-defined schema for the military domain including 8 event types and 11 argument role types. We designed a two-stage, multi-turns annotation strategy to ensure the quality of CMNEE and reproduced several state-of-the-art event extraction models with a systematic evaluation. The experimental results on CMNEE fall shorter than those on other domain datasets obviously, which demonstrates that event extraction for military domain poses unique challenges and requires further research efforts. Our code and data can be obtained from https://github.com/Mzzzhu/CMNEE.

The argument role in event extraction refers to the relation between an event and an argument participating in it. Despite the great progress in event extraction, existing studies still depend on roles pre-defined by domain experts. These studies expose obvious weakness when extending to emerging event types or new domains without available roles. Therefore, more attention and effort needs to be devoted to automatically customizing argument roles. In this paper, we define this essential but under-explored task: open-vocabulary argument role prediction. The goal of this task is to infer a set of argument roles for a given event type. We propose a novel unsupervised framework, RolePred for this task. Specifically, we formulate the role prediction problem as an in-filling task and construct prompts for a pre-trained language model to generate candidate roles. By extracting and analyzing the candidate arguments, the event-specific roles are further merged and selected. To standardize the research of this task, we collect a new event extraction dataset from WikiPpedia including 142 customized argument roles with rich semantics. On this dataset, RolePred outperforms the existing methods by a large margin. Source code and dataset are available on our GitHub repository: https://github.com/yzjiao/RolePred

Recent works in Event Argument Extraction (EAE) have focused on improving model generalizability to cater to new events and domains. However, standard benchmarking datasets like ACE and ERE cover less than 40 event types and 25 entity-centric argument roles. Limited diversity and coverage hinder these datasets from adequately evaluating the generalizability of EAE models. In this paper, we first contribute by creating a large and diverse EAE ontology. This ontology is created by transforming FrameNet, a comprehensive semantic role labeling (SRL) dataset for EAE, by exploiting the similarity between these two tasks. Then, exhaustive human expert annotations are collected to build the ontology, concluding with 115 events and 220 argument roles, with a significant portion of roles not being entities. We utilize this ontology to further introduce GENEVA, a diverse generalizability benchmarking dataset comprising four test suites, aimed at evaluating models' ability to handle limited data and unseen event type generalization. We benchmark six EAE models from various families. The results show that owing to non-entity argument roles, even the best-performing model can only achieve 39% F1 score, indicating how GENEVA provides new challenges for generalization in EAE. Overall, our large and diverse EAE ontology can aid in creating more comprehensive future resources, while GENEVA is a challenging benchmarking dataset encouraging further research for improving generalizability in EAE. The code and data can be found at https://github.com/PlusLabNLP/GENEVA.

Debate is the process of exchanging viewpoints or convincing others on a particular issue. Recent research has provided empirical evidence that the persuasiveness of an argument is determined not only by language usage but also by communicator characteristics. Researchers have paid much attention to aspects of languages, such as linguistic features and discourse structures, but combining argument persuasiveness and impact with the social personae of the audience has not been explored due to the difficulty and complexity. We have observed the impressive simulation and personification capability of ChatGPT, indicating a giant pre-trained language model may function as an individual to provide personae and exert unique influences based on diverse background knowledge. Therefore, we propose a persona knowledge-aligned framework for argument quality assessment tasks from the audience side. This is the first work that leverages the emergence of ChatGPT and injects such audience personae knowledge into smaller language models via prompt tuning. The performance of our pipeline demonstrates significant and consistent improvement compared to competitive architectures.

Multi-agent large language model (LLM) and vision-language model (VLM) debate systems employ specialized roles for complex problem-solving, yet model specializations are not leveraged to decide which model should fill which role. We propose dynamic role assignment, a framework that runs a Meta-Debate to select suitable agents before the actual debate. The meta-debate has two stages: (1) proposal, where candidates provide role-tailored arguments, and (2) peer review, where proposals are scored with data and role-specific criteria to choose the best agent for each position. We evaluate our method on LLM problem solving benchmarks. Applied on top of existing debate systems, our approach consistently outperforms uniform assignments (filling all roles with the same model) by up to 74.8% and random assignments (assigning models to roles without considering their suitability) by up to 29.7%, depending on the task and the specific assignment. This work establishes a new paradigm for multi-agent system design, shifting from static agent deployment to dynamic and capability-aware selection.

Language model users often embed personal and social context in their questions. The asker's role -- implicit in how the question is framed -- creates specific needs for an appropriate response. However, most evaluations, while capturing the model's capability to respond, often ignore who is asking. This gap is especially critical in stigmatized domains such as opioid use disorder (OUD), where accounting for users' contexts is essential to provide accessible, stigma-free responses. We propose CoRUS (COmmunity-driven Roles for User-centric Question Simulation), a framework for simulating role-based questions. Drawing on role theory and posts from an online OUD recovery community (r/OpiatesRecovery), we first build a taxonomy of asker roles -- patients, caregivers, practitioners. Next, we use it to simulate 15,321 questions that embed each role's goals, behaviors, and experiences. Our evaluations show that these questions are both highly believable and comparable to real-world data. When used to evaluate five LLMs, for the same question but differing roles, we find systematic differences: vulnerable roles, such as patients and caregivers, elicit more supportive responses (+17%) and reduced knowledge content (-19%) in comparison to practitioners. Our work demonstrates how implicitly signaling a user's role shapes model responses, and provides a methodology for role-informed evaluation of conversational AI.

The advent of pre-trained Language Models (LMs) has markedly advanced natural language processing, but their efficacy in out-of-distribution (OOD) scenarios remains a significant challenge. Computational argumentation (CA), modeling human argumentation processes, is a field notably impacted by these challenges because complex annotation schemes and high annotation costs naturally lead to resources barely covering the multiplicity of available text sources and topics. Due to this data scarcity, generalization to data from uncovered covariant distributions is a common challenge for CA tasks like stance detection or argument classification. This work systematically assesses LMs' capabilities for such OOD scenarios. While previous work targets specific OOD types like topic shifts or OOD uniformly, we address three prevalent OOD scenarios in CA: topic shift, domain shift, and language shift. Our findings challenge the previously asserted general superiority of in-context learning (ICL) for OOD. We find that the efficacy of such learning paradigms varies with the type of OOD. Specifically, while ICL excels for domain shifts, prompt-based fine-tuning surpasses for topic shifts. To sum up, we navigate the heterogeneity of OOD scenarios in CA and empirically underscore the potential of base-sized LMs in overcoming these challenges.

In this paper, we introduce a new distributional method for modeling predicate-argument thematic fit judgments. We use a syntax-based DSM to build a prototypical representation of verb-specific roles: for every verb, we extract the most salient second order contexts for each of its roles (i.e. the most salient dimensions of typical role fillers), and then we compute thematic fit as a weighted overlap between the top features of candidate fillers and role prototypes. Our experiments show that our method consistently outperforms a baseline re-implementing a state-of-the-art system, and achieves better or comparable results to those reported in the literature for the other unsupervised systems. Moreover, it provides an explicit representation of the features characterizing verb-specific semantic roles.

This report investigates approaches for prompting a tool-augmented large language model (LLM) to act as a role-playing dialogue agent in the API track of the Commonsense Persona-grounded Dialogue Challenge (CPDC) 2025. In this setting, dialogue agents often produce overly long in-character responses (over-speaking) while failing to use tools effectively according to the persona (under-acting), such as generating function calls that do not exist or making unnecessary tool calls before answering. We explore four prompting approaches to address these issues: 1) basic role prompting, 2) improved role prompting, 3) automatic prompt optimization (APO), and 4) rule-based role prompting. The rule-based role prompting (RRP) approach achieved the best performance through two novel techniques-character-card/scene-contract design and strict enforcement of function calling-which led to an overall score of 0.571, improving on the zero-shot baseline score of 0.519. These findings demonstrate that RRP design can substantially improve the effectiveness and reliability of role-playing dialogue agents compared with more elaborate methods such as APO. To support future efforts in developing persona prompts, we are open-sourcing all of our best-performing prompts and the APO tool Source code is available at https://github.com/scb-10x/apo

With the recent advances of large language models (LLMs), it is no longer infeasible to build an automated debate system that helps people to synthesise persuasive arguments. Previous work attempted this task by integrating multiple components. In our work, we introduce an argument mining dataset that captures the end-to-end process of preparing an argumentative essay for a debate, which covers the tasks of claim and evidence identification (Task 1 ED), evidence convincingness ranking (Task 2 ECR), argumentative essay summarisation and human preference ranking (Task 3 ASR) and metric learning for automated evaluation of resulting essays, based on human feedback along argument quality dimensions (Task 4 SQE). Our dataset contains 14k examples of claims that are fully annotated with the various properties supporting the aforementioned tasks. We evaluate multiple generative baselines for each of these tasks, including representative LLMs. We find, that while they show promising results on individual tasks in our benchmark, their end-to-end performance on all four tasks in succession deteriorates significantly, both in automated measures as well as in human-centred evaluation. This challenge presented by our proposed dataset motivates future research on end-to-end argument mining and summarisation. The repository of this project is available at https://github.com/HarrywillDr/ArgSum-Datatset

Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) encompasses methods that draw on different sources of information and address different explanatory needs. A common framework is needed to describe how this information becomes evidence and is communicated as an explanation for a particular recipient. We propose the General Framework for Generating Explanations (GFGE), grounded in interpretative frameworks and the complementary activities of sense-reading and sense-giving. Its conceptual foundation is the Interpret/Explain Schema (IES), which connects an analyst's interpretation of system evidence, the communication of a selected account, and the recipient's interpretation of that account. GFGE operationalises this schema through five roles: data interpretation, model interpretation, output interpretation, optional post-hoc analysis, and aggregation. A role-typed operation graph records method-specific dependencies, while evidence records retain the sources, assumptions, and limitations of explanatory claims. The explanatory question, audience, and context guide the procedure. We instantiate GFGE for attribution, surrogate, counterfactual, concept and prototype, intrinsic rule, argumentation, and language-model methods. These instantiations show how intrinsic, post-hoc, and hybrid workflows can be represented through the same roles while preserving their distinct evidential requirements. GFGE provides a common basis for analysing explanation workflows, tracing communicated claims to their evidence, and identifying unresolved explanatory dependencies.

In this work we address the problem of argument search. The purpose of argument search is the distillation of pro and contra arguments for requested topics from large text corpora. In previous works, the usual approach is to use a standard search engine to extract text parts which are relevant to the given topic and subsequently use an argument recognition algorithm to select arguments from them. The main challenge in the argument recognition task, which is also known as argument mining, is that often sentences containing arguments are structurally similar to purely informative sentences without any stance about the topic. In fact, they only differ semantically. Most approaches use topic or search term information only for the first search step and therefore assume that arguments can be classified independently of a topic. We argue that topic information is crucial for argument mining, since the topic defines the semantic context of an argument. Precisely, we propose different models for the classification of arguments, which take information about a topic of an argument into account. Moreover, to enrich the context of a topic and to let models understand the context of the potential argument better, we integrate information from different external sources such as Knowledge Graphs or pre-trained NLP models. Our evaluation shows that considering topic information, especially in connection with external information, provides a significant performance boost for the argument mining task.

The connections among natural language processing and argumentation theory are becoming stronger in the latest years, with a growing amount of works going in this direction, in different scenarios and applying heterogeneous techniques. In this paper, we present two datasets we built to cope with the combination of the Textual Entailment framework and bipolar abstract argumentation. In our approach, such datasets are used to automatically identify through a Textual Entailment system the relations among the arguments (i.e., attack, support), and then the resulting bipolar argumentation graphs are analyzed to compute the accepted arguments.

Prompting serves as the major way humans interact with Large Language Models (LLM). Commercial AI systems commonly define the role of the LLM in system prompts. For example, ChatGPT uses ``You are a helpful assistant'' as part of its default system prompt. Despite current practices of adding personas to system prompts, it remains unclear how different personas affect a model's performance on objective tasks. In this study, we present a systematic evaluation of personas in system prompts. We curate a list of 162 roles covering 6 types of interpersonal relationships and 8 domains of expertise. Through extensive analysis of 4 popular families of LLMs and 2,410 factual questions, we demonstrate that adding personas in system prompts does not improve model performance across a range of questions compared to the control setting where no persona is added. Nevertheless, further analysis suggests that the gender, type, and domain of the persona can all influence the resulting prediction accuracies. We further experimented with a list of persona search strategies and found that, while aggregating results from the best persona for each question significantly improves prediction accuracy, automatically identifying the best persona is challenging, with predictions often performing no better than random selection. Overall, our findings suggest that while adding a persona may lead to performance gains in certain settings, the effect of each persona can be largely random. Code and data are available at https://github.com/Jiaxin-Pei/Prompting-with-Social-Roles.

In many domains of argumentation, people's arguments are driven by so-called attitude roots, i.e., underlying beliefs and world views, and their corresponding attitude themes. Given the strength of these latent drivers of arguments, recent work in psychology suggests that instead of directly countering surface-level reasoning (e.g., falsifying given premises), one should follow an argumentation style inspired by the Jiu-Jitsu 'soft' combat system (Hornsey and Fielding, 2017): first, identify an arguer's attitude roots and themes, and then choose a prototypical rebuttal that is aligned with those drivers instead of invalidating those. In this work, we are the first to explore Jiu-Jitsu argumentation for peer review by proposing the novel task of attitude and theme-guided rebuttal generation. To this end, we enrich an existing dataset for discourse structure in peer reviews with attitude roots, attitude themes, and canonical rebuttals. To facilitate this process, we recast established annotation concepts from the domain of peer reviews (e.g., aspects a review sentence is relating to) and train domain-specific models. We then propose strong rebuttal generation strategies, which we benchmark on our novel dataset for the task of end-to-end attitude and theme-guided rebuttal generation and two subtasks.

Argumentation is one of society's foundational pillars, and, sparked by advances in NLP and the vast availability of text data, automated mining of arguments receives increasing attention. A decisive property of arguments is their strength or quality. While there are works on the automated estimation of argument strength, their scope is narrow: they focus on isolated datasets and neglect the interactions with related argument mining tasks, such as argument identification, evidence detection, or emotional appeal. In this work, we close this gap by approaching argument quality estimation from multiple different angles: Grounded on rich results from thorough empirical evaluations, we assess the generalization capabilities of argument quality estimation across diverse domains, the interplay with related argument mining tasks, and the impact of emotions on perceived argument strength. We find that generalization depends on a sufficient representation of different domains in the training part. In zero-shot transfer and multi-task experiments, we reveal that argument quality is among the more challenging tasks but can improve others. Finally, we show that emotions play a minor role in argument quality than is often assumed.

Recent open-domain dialogue models have brought numerous breakthroughs. However, building a chat system is not scalable since it often requires a considerable volume of human-human dialogue data, especially when enforcing features such as persona, style, or safety. In this work, we study the challenge of imposing roles on open-domain dialogue systems, with the goal of making the systems maintain consistent roles while conversing naturally with humans. To accomplish this, the system must satisfy a role specification that includes certain conditions on the stated features as well as a system policy on whether or not certain types of utterances are allowed. For this, we propose an efficient data collection framework leveraging in-context few-shot learning of large-scale language models for building role-satisfying dialogue dataset from scratch. We then compare various architectures for open-domain dialogue systems in terms of meeting role specifications while maintaining conversational abilities. Automatic and human evaluations show that our models return few out-of-bounds utterances, keeping competitive performance on general metrics. We release a Korean dialogue dataset we built for further research.

As dialogue agents become increasingly human-like in their performance, it is imperative that we develop effective ways to describe their behaviour in high-level terms without falling into the trap of anthropomorphism. In this paper, we foreground the concept of role-play. Casting dialogue agent behaviour in terms of role-play allows us to draw on familiar folk psychological terms, without ascribing human characteristics to language models they in fact lack. Two important cases of dialogue agent behaviour are addressed this way, namely (apparent) deception and (apparent) self-awareness.

Argument mining involves multiple sub-tasks that automatically identify argumentative elements, such as claim detection, evidence extraction, stance classification, etc. However, each subtask alone is insufficient for a thorough understanding of the argumentative structure and reasoning process. To learn a complete view of an argument essay and capture the interdependence among argumentative components, we need to know what opinions people hold (i.e., claims), why those opinions are valid (i.e., supporting evidence), which source the evidence comes from (i.e., evidence type), and how those claims react to the debating topic (i.e., stance). In this work, we for the first time propose a challenging argument quadruplet extraction task (AQE), which can provide an all-in-one extraction of four argumentative components, i.e., claims, evidence, evidence types, and stances. To support this task, we construct a large-scale and challenging dataset. However, there is no existing method that can solve the argument quadruplet extraction. To fill this gap, we propose a novel quad-tagging augmented generative approach, which leverages a quadruplet tagging module to augment the training of the generative framework. The experimental results on our dataset demonstrate the empirical superiority of our proposed approach over several strong baselines.

The ability to generate counterarguments is important for critical thinking and balanced discourse, yet existing approaches typically produce only a single counterargument, failing to capture the diversity and persuasiveness required in real-world debates. To address this limitation, we propose Persona-guided Tree-based Counterargument Generation (PTCG), a framework that combines Tree-of-Thoughts-inspired step-wise generation and pruning with speaker persona selection. By estimating the author's persona from the original argument and incorporating speaker personas representing distinct perspectives, PTCG operationalizes perspective-taking and enables the generation of diverse counterarguments. Results from LLM-as-a-Judge, classifier-based assessment, and human evaluations indicate that PTCG shows consistent improvements in both the diversity and persuasiveness of counterarguments compared to baseline methods.

We present R-Debater, an agentic framework for generating multi-turn debates built on argumentative memory. Grounded in rhetoric and memory studies, the system views debate as a process of recalling and adapting prior arguments to maintain stance consistency, respond to opponents, and support claims with evidence. Specifically, R-Debater integrates a debate knowledge base for retrieving case-like evidence and prior debate moves with a role-based agent that composes coherent utterances across turns. We evaluate on standardized ORCHID debates, constructing a 1,000-item retrieval corpus and a held-out set of 32 debates across seven domains. Two tasks are evaluated: next-utterance generation, assessed by InspireScore (subjective, logical, and factual), and adversarial multi-turn simulations, judged by Debatrix (argument, source, language, and overall). Compared with strong LLM baselines, R-Debater achieves higher single-turn and multi-turn scores. Human evaluation with 20 experienced debaters further confirms its consistency and evidence use, showing that combining retrieval grounding with structured planning yields more faithful, stance-aligned, and coherent debates across turns.

The increasing capability of Large Language Models to act as human-like social agents raises two important questions in the area of opinion dynamics. First, whether these agents can generate effective arguments that could be injected into the online discourse to steer the public opinion. Second, whether artificial agents can interact with each other to reproduce dynamics of persuasion typical of human social systems, opening up opportunities for studying synthetic social systems as faithful proxies for opinion dynamics in human populations. To address these questions, we designed a synthetic persuasion dialogue scenario on the topic of climate change, where a 'convincer' agent generates a persuasive argument for a 'skeptic' agent, who subsequently assesses whether the argument changed its internal opinion state. Different types of arguments were generated to incorporate different linguistic dimensions underpinning psycho-linguistic theories of opinion change. We then asked human judges to evaluate the persuasiveness of machine-generated arguments. Arguments that included factual knowledge, markers of trust, expressions of support, and conveyed status were deemed most effective according to both humans and agents, with humans reporting a marked preference for knowledge-based arguments. Our experimental framework lays the groundwork for future in-silico studies of opinion dynamics, and our findings suggest that artificial agents have the potential of playing an important role in collective processes of opinion formation in online social media.

The successful analysis of argumentative techniques from user-generated text is central to many downstream tasks such as political and market analysis. Recent argument mining tools use state-of-the-art deep learning methods to extract and annotate argumentative techniques from various online text corpora, however each task is treated as separate and different bespoke models are fine-tuned for each dataset. We show that different argument mining tasks share common semantic and logical structure by implementing a multi-task approach to argument mining that achieves better performance than state-of-the-art methods for the same problems. Our model builds a shared representation of the input text that is common to all tasks and exploits similarities between tasks in order to further boost performance via parameter-sharing. Our results are important for argument mining as they show that different tasks share substantial similarities and suggest a holistic approach to the extraction of argumentative techniques from text.

This survey explores the burgeoning field of role-playing with language models, focusing on their development from early persona-based models to advanced character-driven simulations facilitated by Large Language Models (LLMs). Initially confined to simple persona consistency due to limited model capabilities, role-playing tasks have now expanded to embrace complex character portrayals involving character consistency, behavioral alignment, and overall attractiveness. We provide a comprehensive taxonomy of the critical components in designing these systems, including data, models and alignment, agent architecture and evaluation. This survey not only outlines the current methodologies and challenges, such as managing dynamic personal profiles and achieving high-level persona consistency but also suggests avenues for future research in improving the depth and realism of role-playing applications. The goal is to guide future research by offering a structured overview of current methodologies and identifying potential areas for improvement. Related resources and papers are available at https://github.com/nuochenpku/Awesome-Role-Play-Papers.

Presenting high-level arguments is a crucial task for fostering participation in online societal discussions. Current argument summarization approaches miss an important facet of this task -- capturing diversity -- which is important for accommodating multiple perspectives. We introduce three aspects of diversity: those of opinions, annotators, and sources. We evaluate approaches to a popular argument summarization task called Key Point Analysis, which shows how these approaches struggle to (1) represent arguments shared by few people, (2) deal with data from various sources, and (3) align with subjectivity in human-provided annotations. We find that both general-purpose LLMs and dedicated KPA models exhibit this behavior, but have complementary strengths. Further, we observe that diversification of training data may ameliorate generalization. Addressing diversity in argument summarization requires a mix of strategies to deal with subjectivity.

Multi-agent systems utilizing large language models often assign authoritative roles to improve performance, yet the impact of authority bias on agent interactions remains underexplored. We present the first systematic analysis of role-based authority bias in free-form multi-agent evaluation using ChatEval. Applying French and Raven's power-based theory, we classify authoritative roles into legitimate, referent, and expert types and analyze their influence across 12-turn conversations. Experiments with GPT-4o and DeepSeek R1 reveal that Expert and Referent power roles exert stronger influence than Legitimate power roles. Crucially, authority bias emerges not through active conformity by general agents, but through authoritative roles consistently maintaining their positions while general agents demonstrate flexibility. Furthermore, authority influence requires clear position statements, as neutral responses fail to generate bias. These findings provide key insights for designing multi-agent frameworks with asymmetric interaction patterns.

Writing persuasive arguments is a challenging task for both humans and machines. It entails incorporating high-level beliefs from various perspectives on the topic, along with deliberate reasoning and planning to construct a coherent narrative. Current language models often generate surface tokens autoregressively, lacking explicit integration of these underlying controls, resulting in limited output diversity and coherence. In this work, we propose a persona-based multi-agent framework for argument writing. Inspired by the human debate, we first assign each agent a persona representing its high-level beliefs from a unique perspective, and then design an agent interaction process so that the agents can collaboratively debate and discuss the idea to form an overall plan for argument writing. Such debate process enables fluid and nonlinear development of ideas. We evaluate our framework on argumentative essay writing. The results show that our framework can generate more diverse and persuasive arguments through both automatic and human evaluations.

Role-playing is important for Large Language Models (LLMs) to follow diverse instructions while maintaining role identity and the role's pre-defined ability limits. Existing role-playing datasets mostly contribute to controlling role style and knowledge boundaries, but overlook role-playing in instruction-following scenarios. We introduce a fine-grained role-playing and instruction-following composite benchmark, named RoleMRC, including: (1) Multi-turn dialogues between ideal roles and humans, including free chats or discussions upon given passages; (2) Role-playing machine reading comprehension, involving response, refusal, and attempts according to passage answerability and role ability; (3) More complex scenarios with nested, multi-turn and prioritized instructions. The final RoleMRC features a 10.2k role profile meta-pool, 37.9k well-synthesized role-playing instructions, and 1.4k testing samples. We develop a pipeline to quantitatively evaluate the fine-grained role-playing and instruction-following capabilities of several mainstream LLMs, as well as models that are fine-tuned on our data. Moreover, cross-evaluation on external role-playing datasets confirms that models fine-tuned on RoleMRC enhances instruction-following without compromising general role-playing and reasoning capabilities. We also probe the neural-level activation maps of different capabilities over post-tuned LLMs. Access to our RoleMRC, RoleMRC-mix and Codes: https://github.com/LuJunru/RoleMRC.

Semantic role labeling (SRL) is a fundamental yet challenging task in the NLP community. Recent works of SRL mainly fall into two lines: 1) BIO-based; 2) span-based. Despite ubiquity, they share some intrinsic drawbacks of not considering internal argument structures, potentially hindering the model's expressiveness. The key challenge is arguments are flat structures, and there are no determined subtree realizations for words inside arguments. To remedy this, in this paper, we propose to regard flat argument spans as latent subtrees, accordingly reducing SRL to a tree parsing task. In particular, we equip our formulation with a novel span-constrained TreeCRF to make tree structures span-aware and further extend it to the second-order case. We conduct extensive experiments on CoNLL05 and CoNLL12 benchmarks. Results reveal that our methods perform favorably better than all previous syntax-agnostic works, achieving new state-of-the-art under both end-to-end and w/ gold predicates settings.

Asking questions about a situation is an inherent step towards understanding it. To this end, we introduce the task of role question generation, which, given a predicate mention and a passage, requires producing a set of questions asking about all possible semantic roles of the predicate. We develop a two-stage model for this task, which first produces a context-independent question prototype for each role and then revises it to be contextually appropriate for the passage. Unlike most existing approaches to question generation, our approach does not require conditioning on existing answers in the text. Instead, we condition on the type of information to inquire about, regardless of whether the answer appears explicitly in the text, could be inferred from it, or should be sought elsewhere. Our evaluation demonstrates that we generate diverse and well-formed questions for a large, broad-coverage ontology of predicates and roles.

Although we have witnessed impressive progress in Semantic Role Labeling (SRL), most of the research in the area is carried out assuming that the majority of predicates are verbs. Conversely, predicates can also be expressed using other parts of speech, e.g., nouns and adjectives. However, non-verbal predicates appear in the benchmarks we commonly use to measure progress in SRL less frequently than in some real-world settings -- newspaper headlines, dialogues, and tweets, among others. In this paper, we put forward a new PropBank dataset which boasts wide coverage of multiple predicate types. Thanks to it, we demonstrate empirically that standard benchmarks do not provide an accurate picture of the current situation in SRL and that state-of-the-art systems are still incapable of transferring knowledge across different predicate types. Having observed these issues, we also present a novel, manually-annotated challenge set designed to give equal importance to verbal, nominal, and adjectival predicate-argument structures. We use such dataset to investigate whether we can leverage different linguistic resources to promote knowledge transfer. In conclusion, we claim that SRL is far from "solved", and its integration with other semantic tasks might enable significant improvements in the future, especially for the long tail of non-verbal predicates, thereby facilitating further research on SRL for non-verbal predicates.

Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have significantly boosted the rise of Role-Playing Language Agents (RPLAs), i.e., specialized AI systems designed to simulate assigned personas. By harnessing multiple advanced abilities of LLMs, including in-context learning, instruction following, and social intelligence, RPLAs achieve a remarkable sense of human likeness and vivid role-playing performance. RPLAs can mimic a wide range of personas, ranging from historical figures and fictional characters to real-life individuals. Consequently, they have catalyzed numerous AI applications, such as emotional companions, interactive video games, personalized assistants and copilots, and digital clones. In this paper, we conduct a comprehensive survey of this field, illustrating the evolution and recent progress in RPLAs integrating with cutting-edge LLM technologies. We categorize personas into three types: 1) Demographic Persona, which leverages statistical stereotypes; 2) Character Persona, focused on well-established figures; and 3) Individualized Persona, customized through ongoing user interactions for personalized services. We begin by presenting a comprehensive overview of current methodologies for RPLAs, followed by the details for each persona type, covering corresponding data sourcing, agent construction, and evaluation. Afterward, we discuss the fundamental risks, existing limitations, and future prospects of RPLAs. Additionally, we provide a brief review of RPLAs in AI applications, which reflects practical user demands that shape and drive RPLA research. Through this work, we aim to establish a clear taxonomy of RPLA research and applications, and facilitate future research in this critical and ever-evolving field, and pave the way for a future where humans and RPLAs coexist in harmony.

Uncovering latent values and opinions in large language models (LLMs) can help identify biases and mitigate potential harm. Recently, this has been approached by presenting LLMs with survey questions and quantifying their stances towards morally and politically charged statements. However, the stances generated by LLMs can vary greatly depending on how they are prompted, and there are many ways to argue for or against a given position. In this work, we propose to address this by analysing a large and robust dataset of 156k LLM responses to the 62 propositions of the Political Compass Test (PCT) generated by 6 LLMs using 420 prompt variations. We perform coarse-grained analysis of their generated stances and fine-grained analysis of the plain text justifications for those stances. For fine-grained analysis, we propose to identify tropes in the responses: semantically similar phrases that are recurrent and consistent across different prompts, revealing patterns in the text that a given LLM is prone to produce. We find that demographic features added to prompts significantly affect outcomes on the PCT, reflecting bias, as well as disparities between the results of tests when eliciting closed-form vs. open domain responses. Additionally, patterns in the plain text rationales via tropes show that similar justifications are repeatedly generated across models and prompts even with disparate stances.

Role-Playing Agents (RPAs) have shown remarkable performance in various applications, yet they often struggle to recognize and appropriately respond to hard queries that conflict with their role-play knowledge. To investigate RPAs' performance when faced with different types of conflicting requests, we develop an evaluation benchmark that includes contextual knowledge conflicting requests, parametric knowledge conflicting requests, and non-conflicting requests to assess RPAs' ability to identify conflicts and refuse to answer appropriately without over-refusing. Through extensive evaluation, we find that most RPAs behave significant performance gaps toward different conflict requests. To elucidate the reasons, we conduct an in-depth representation-level analysis of RPAs under various conflict scenarios. Our findings reveal the existence of rejection regions and direct response regions within the model's forwarding representation, and thus influence the RPA's final response behavior. Therefore, we introduce a lightweight representation editing approach that conveniently shifts conflicting requests to the rejection region, thereby enhancing the model's refusal accuracy. The experimental results validate the effectiveness of our editing method, improving RPAs' refusal ability of conflicting requests while maintaining their general role-playing capabilities.

Optimizing the phrasing of argumentative text is crucial in higher education and professional development. However, assessing whether and how the different claims in a text should be revised is a hard task, especially for novice writers. In this work, we explore the main challenges to identifying argumentative claims in need of specific revisions. By learning from collaborative editing behaviors in online debates, we seek to capture implicit revision patterns in order to develop approaches aimed at guiding writers in how to further improve their arguments. We systematically compare the ability of common word embedding models to capture the differences between different versions of the same text, and we analyze their impact on various types of writing issues. To deal with the noisy nature of revision-based corpora, we propose a new sampling strategy based on revision distance. Opposed to approaches from prior work, such sampling can be done without employing additional annotations and judgments. Moreover, we provide evidence that using contextual information and domain knowledge can further improve prediction results. How useful a certain type of context is, depends on the issue the claim is suffering from, though.

One of the common traits of past and present approaches for Semantic Role Labeling (SRL) is that they rely upon discrete labels drawn from a predefined linguistic inventory to classify predicate senses and their arguments. However, we argue this need not be the case. In this paper, we present an approach that leverages Definition Modeling to introduce a generalized formulation of SRL as the task of describing predicate-argument structures using natural language definitions instead of discrete labels. Our novel formulation takes a first step towards placing interpretability and flexibility foremost, and yet our experiments and analyses on PropBank-style and FrameNet-style, dependency-based and span-based SRL also demonstrate that a flexible model with an interpretable output does not necessarily come at the expense of performance. We release our software for research purposes at https://github.com/SapienzaNLP/dsrl.

In computational argumentation, obtaining arguments that explicitly support or attack given claims is a critical precursor to downstream reasoning tasks. When these supporting and attacking arguments are to be retrieved using semantic search methods, they need to be assessed for topic-relevance to the claims of interest as well as for correctness of their (positive or negative) stance towards the claims. In this paper we explore how dense embedding models (hereafter, models), powering modern retrieval pipelines, can serve as the basis of semantic search incorporating this dual assessment. We show experimentally that existing models struggle with asymmetric reasoning, exhibiting a strong bias toward topical overlap while ignoring instructional stance. We also show that correcting this bias via contrastive training triggers a new failure mode where models over-correct, over-fixating on polarity keywords (e.g., "supports" or "refutes") at the expense of the semantic topic. We thus introduce diagnostic word-ablation metrics to quantify this phenomenon and propose a data-centric solution. By implementing a balanced argument curriculum alongside LLM-augmented, stance-inverted arguments, we force the (embedding) models to learn deeper directional logic rather than exploiting superficial lexical shortcuts. Our evaluation demonstrates that, for sufficiently powerful models, this approach can alleviate the observed overcorrection, achieving further improvements in stance-aware argument retrieval.

Modern large language models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, exhibit a remarkable capacity for role-playing, enabling them to embody not only human characters but also non-human entities like a Linux terminal. This versatility allows them to simulate complex human-like interactions and behaviors within various contexts, as well as to emulate specific objects or systems. While these capabilities have enhanced user engagement and introduced novel modes of interaction, the influence of role-playing on LLMs' reasoning abilities remains underexplored. In this study, we introduce a strategically designed role-play prompting methodology and assess its performance under the zero-shot setting across twelve diverse reasoning benchmarks, encompassing arithmetic, commonsense reasoning, symbolic reasoning, and more. Leveraging models such as ChatGPT and Llama 2, our empirical results illustrate that role-play prompting consistently surpasses the standard zero-shot approach across most datasets. Notably, accuracy on AQuA rises from 53.5% to 63.8%, and on Last Letter from 23.8% to 84.2%. Beyond enhancing contextual understanding, we posit that role-play prompting serves as an implicit Chain-of-Thought (CoT) trigger, thereby improving the quality of reasoning. By comparing our approach with the Zero-Shot-CoT technique, which prompts the model to "think step by step", we further demonstrate that role-play prompting can generate a more effective CoT. This highlights its potential to augment the reasoning capabilities of LLMs.

Language agents have demonstrated autonomous decision-making abilities by reasoning with foundation models. Recently, efforts have been made to train language agents for performance improvement, with multi-step reasoning and action trajectories as the training data. However, collecting such trajectories still requires considerable human effort, by either artificial annotation or implementations of diverse prompting frameworks. In this work, we propose A^3T, a framework that enables the Autonomous Annotation of Agent Trajectories in the style of ReAct. The central role is an ActRe prompting agent, which explains the reason for an arbitrary action. When randomly sampling an external action, the ReAct-style agent could query the ActRe agent with the action to obtain its textual rationales. Novel trajectories are then synthesized by prepending the posterior reasoning from ActRe to the sampled action. In this way, the ReAct-style agent executes multiple trajectories for the failed tasks, and selects the successful ones to supplement its failed trajectory for contrastive self-training. Realized by policy gradient methods with binarized rewards, the contrastive self-training with accumulated trajectories facilitates a closed loop for multiple rounds of language agent self-improvement. We conduct experiments using QLoRA fine-tuning with the open-sourced Mistral-7B-Instruct-v0.2. In AlfWorld, the agent trained with A^3T obtains a 1-shot success rate of 96%, and 100% success with 4 iterative rounds. In WebShop, the 1-shot performance of the A^3T agent matches human average, and 4 rounds of iterative refinement lead to the performance approaching human experts. A^3T agents significantly outperform existing techniques, including prompting with GPT-4, advanced agent frameworks, and fully fine-tuned LLMs.

Recent advancements in LLMs have showcased their remarkable role-playing capabilities, able to accurately simulate the dialogue styles and cognitive processes of various roles based on different instructions and contexts. Studies indicate that assigning LLMs the roles of experts, a strategy known as role-play prompting, can enhance their performance in the corresponding domains. However, the prompt needs to be manually designed for the given problem, requiring certain expertise and iterative modifications. To this end, we propose self-prompt tuning, making LLMs themselves generate role-play prompts through fine-tuning. Leveraging the LIMA dataset as our foundational corpus, we employ GPT-4 to annotate role-play prompts for each data points, resulting in the creation of the LIMA-Role dataset. We then fine-tune LLMs like Llama-2-7B and Mistral-7B on LIMA-Role. Consequently, the self-prompt tuned LLMs can automatically generate expert role prompts for any given question. We extensively evaluate self-prompt tuned LLMs on widely used NLP benchmarks and open-ended question test. Our empirical results illustrate that self-prompt tuned LLMs outperform standard instruction tuned baselines across most datasets. This highlights the great potential of utilizing fine-tuning to enable LLMs to self-prompt, thereby automating complex prompting strategies. We release the dataset, models, and code at this https://anonymous.4open.science/r/Self-Prompt-Tuning-739E/{url}.

Social simulations built from language-model agents need role-conditioned behavior that can be checked before agents are placed into a simulated population. We introduce an activation-steering screening workflow for role-conditioned agents: define a role profile, extract a role-specific direction, sweep four steering coefficients, evaluate role-profile alignment, and pass or flag each candidate configuration. On OLMo-3-7B-Instruct, we apply the workflow to a mixed 275-role inventory with 228 role-agnostic questions, GPT-4.1-mini prompted role references, and GPT-4.1-mini judges. Role-specific directions receive higher judged role-profile alignment than an assistant-axis directional control from prior persona-vector work, with mean overall scores of 63.2 versus 41.1 across the tested grid. They also preserve high lexical diversity, while the control drops sharply at larger coefficients. The role-level screen is the main practical output: most roles improve as steering increases, but 38 roles decline across all six measured dimensions, showing why simulation builders should choose coefficients per role rather than deploy a uniform high-strength setting. We make our code and evaluation artifacts available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/anonymous-research-code-5F03/.

As LLMs are increasingly used to draft public-facing arguments, they may flatten public debate by repeatedly introducing the same polished, plausible arguments. We study argument collapse, the tendency of essays generated by different LLMs to converge to a smaller set of main arguments, sub-arguments, and paragraph-level structures. We compare 1,039 human responses from 195 New York Times (NYT) debates, 448 human responses from 61 longer-form Boston Review (BR) forums, and 23,384 LLM-generated essays. In the NYT corpus, 65.3% of human main arguments are unique within a debate, compared to 3.4% of LLM main arguments. Asking LLMs to generate diverse answers adds variation, but a typical model recovers only about half of the distinct human main arguments, with much of the added variation falling outside the observed human argument space. Collapse also appears in sub-arguments, where among essays with the same main argument, 41.0% of human sub-arguments are unique versus 9.1% from LLM responses. Qualitatively, LLMs often reuse generalized and hedged sub-arguments, while humans prefer more concrete and topic-specific ones. Structure-wise, LLM-generated essays tend to follow a more fixed arc, often opening with a direct claim and moving quickly toward proposals. The same patterns hold in longer BR essays, suggesting that argument collapse extends beyond short-form responses.

Large language models (LLMs) are routinely prompted to take on social roles ranging from individuals to institutions, yet it remains unclear whether their internal representations encode the granularity of such roles, from micro-level individual experience to macro-level organizational, institutional, or national reasoning. We show that they do. We define a contrast-based Granularity Axis as the difference between mean macro- and micro-role hidden states. In Qwen3-8B, this axis aligns with the principal axis (PC1) of the role representation space at cosine 0.972 and accounts for 52.6% of its variance, indicating that granularity is the dominant geometric axis organizing prompted social roles. We construct 75 social roles across five granularity levels and collect 91,200 role-conditioned responses over shared questions and prompt variants, then extract role-level hidden states and project them onto the axis. Role projections increase monotonically across all five levels, remain stable across layers, prompt variants, endpoint definitions, held-out splits, and score-filtered subsets, and transfer to Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct. The axis is also causally relevant: activation steering along it shifts response granularity in the predicted direction, with Llama moving from 2.00 to 3.17 on a five-point macro scale under positive steering on prompts that admit local responses. The two models differ in controllability, suggesting that steering depends on each model's default operating regime. Overall, our findings suggest that social role granularity is not merely a stylistic surface feature, but a structured, ordered, and causally manipulable latent direction in role-conditioned language model behavior.

One of the main tasks in argument mining is the retrieval of argumentative content pertaining to a given topic. Most previous work addressed this task by retrieving a relatively small number of relevant documents as the initial source for such content. This line of research yielded moderate success, which is of limited use in a real-world system. Furthermore, for such a system to yield a comprehensive set of relevant arguments, over a wide range of topics, it requires leveraging a large and diverse corpus in an appropriate manner. Here we present a first end-to-end high-precision, corpus-wide argument mining system. This is made possible by combining sentence-level queries over an appropriate indexing of a very large corpus of newspaper articles, with an iterative annotation scheme. This scheme addresses the inherent label bias in the data and pinpoints the regions of the sample space whose manual labeling is required to obtain high-precision among top-ranked candidates.

An important skill in critical thinking and argumentation is the ability to spot and recognize fallacies. Fallacious arguments, omnipresent in argumentative discourse, can be deceptive, manipulative, or simply leading to `wrong moves' in a discussion. Despite their importance, argumentation scholars and NLP researchers with focus on argumentation quality have not yet investigated fallacies empirically. The nonexistence of resources dealing with fallacious argumentation calls for scalable approaches to data acquisition and annotation, for which the serious games methodology offers an appealing, yet unexplored, alternative. We present Argotario, a serious game that deals with fallacies in everyday argumentation. Argotario is a multilingual, open-source, platform-independent application with strong educational aspects, accessible at www.argotario.net.

In this paper, we present and implement a multi-dimensional, modular framework for performing deep argument analysis (DeepA2) using current pre-trained language models (PTLMs). ArgumentAnalyst -- a T5 model (Raffel et al. 2020) set up and trained within DeepA2 -- reconstructs argumentative texts, which advance an informal argumentation, as valid arguments: It inserts, e.g., missing premises and conclusions, formalizes inferences, and coherently links the logical reconstruction to the source text. We create a synthetic corpus for deep argument analysis, and evaluate ArgumentAnalyst on this new dataset as well as on existing data, specifically EntailmentBank (Dalvi et al. 2021). Our empirical findings vindicate the overall framework and highlight the advantages of a modular design, in particular its ability to emulate established heuristics (such as hermeneutic cycles), to explore the model's uncertainty, to cope with the plurality of correct solutions (underdetermination), and to exploit higher-order evidence.

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) demonstrate that their capabilities are comparable, or even superior, to humans in many tasks in natural language processing. Despite this progress, LLMs are still inadequate at social-cognitive reasoning, which humans are naturally good at. Drawing inspiration from psychological research on the links between certain personality traits and Theory-of-Mind (ToM) reasoning, and from prompt engineering research on the hyper-sensitivity of prompts in affecting LLMs capabilities, this study investigates how inducing personalities in LLMs using prompts affects their ToM reasoning capabilities. Our findings show that certain induced personalities can significantly affect the LLMs' reasoning capabilities in three different ToM tasks. In particular, traits from the Dark Triad have a larger variable effect on LLMs like GPT-3.5, Llama 2, and Mistral across the different ToM tasks. We find that LLMs that exhibit a higher variance across personality prompts in ToM also tends to be more controllable in personality tests: personality traits in LLMs like GPT-3.5, Llama 2 and Mistral can be controllably adjusted through our personality prompts. In today's landscape where role-play is a common strategy when using LLMs, our research highlights the need for caution, as models that adopt specific personas with personalities potentially also alter their reasoning abilities in an unexpected manner.

Document-level event argument extraction poses new challenges of long input and cross-sentence inference compared to its sentence-level counterpart. However, most prior works focus on capturing the relations between candidate arguments and the event trigger in each event, ignoring two crucial points: a) non-argument contextual clue information; b) the relevance among argument roles. In this paper, we propose a SCPRG (Span-trigger-based Contextual Pooling and latent Role Guidance) model, which contains two novel and effective modules for the above problem. The Span-Trigger-based Contextual Pooling(STCP) adaptively selects and aggregates the information of non-argument clue words based on the context attention weights of specific argument-trigger pairs from pre-trained model. The Role-based Latent Information Guidance (RLIG) module constructs latent role representations, makes them interact through role-interactive encoding to capture semantic relevance, and merges them into candidate arguments. Both STCP and RLIG introduce no more than 1% new parameters compared with the base model and can be easily applied to other event extraction models, which are compact and transplantable. Experiments on two public datasets show that our SCPRG outperforms previous state-of-the-art methods, with 1.13 F1 and 2.64 F1 improvements on RAMS and WikiEvents respectively. Further analyses illustrate the interpretability of our model.

In this paper, we propose an effective yet efficient model PAIE for both sentence-level and document-level Event Argument Extraction (EAE), which also generalizes well when there is a lack of training data. On the one hand, PAIE utilizes prompt tuning for extractive objectives to take the best advantages of Pre-trained Language Models (PLMs). It introduces two span selectors based on the prompt to select start/end tokens among input texts for each role. On the other hand, it captures argument interactions via multi-role prompts and conducts joint optimization with optimal span assignments via a bipartite matching loss. Also, with a flexible prompt design, PAIE can extract multiple arguments with the same role instead of conventional heuristic threshold tuning. We have conducted extensive experiments on three benchmarks, including both sentence- and document-level EAE. The results present promising improvements from PAIE (3.5\% and 2.3\% F1 gains in average on three benchmarks, for PAIE-base and PAIE-large respectively). Further analysis demonstrates the efficiency, generalization to few-shot settings, and effectiveness of different extractive prompt tuning strategies. Our code is available at https://github.com/mayubo2333/PAIE.

Strategic interaction in adversarial domains such as law, diplomacy, and negotiation is mediated by language, yet most game-theoretic models abstract away the mechanisms of persuasion that operate through discourse. We present the Strategic Courtroom Framework, a multi-agent simulation environment in which prosecution and defense teams composed of trait-conditioned Large Language Model (LLM) agents engage in iterative, round-based legal argumentation. Agents are instantiated using nine interpretable traits organized into four archetypes, enabling systematic control over rhetorical style and strategic orientation. We evaluate the framework across 10 synthetic legal cases and 84 three-trait team configurations, totaling over 7{,}000 simulated trials using DeepSeek-R1 and Gemini~2.5~Pro. Our results show that heterogeneous teams with complementary traits consistently outperform homogeneous configurations, that moderate interaction depth yields more stable verdicts, and that certain traits (notably quantitative and charismatic) contribute disproportionately to persuasive success. We further introduce a reinforcement-learning-based Trait Orchestrator that dynamically generates defense traits conditioned on the case and opposing team, discovering strategies that outperform static, human-designed trait combinations. Together, these findings demonstrate how language can be treated as a first-class strategic action space and provide a foundation for building autonomous agents capable of adaptive persuasion in multi-agent environments.

Recent work shows that LLM agents struggle to correct errors in their own reasoning traces yet show markedly higher correction rates when identical claims appear under external sources. We ask whether this asymmetry reflects a capability deficit or a role-label artifact: does an agent's willingness to correct a wrong claim depend causally on the chat-template role that carries it, rather than on the claim's content? Our setup keeps the erroneous claim byte-identical across all conditions (SHA-256 verified) and varies only its wrapping role: the agent's own <thought>, a user message, a tool response, or a system <memory> block. Across 13 model-domain cells covering seven model families and three domains (n{=}30 paired tasks per cell), relabeling the claim from <thought> to an external role lifts the explicit-correction rate by 23 to 93 percentage points, with 10 of 13 cells reaching p{<}0.001. Further experiments confirm that the effect is asymmetric, mechanistically decomposable, and robust across domains. The failure to self-correct is not a cognitive deficit; it is a chat-template artifact. We exploit this artifact by designing a prompt-structure-only intervention that requires no training and no model modification, with its strongest role label being domain-dependent: <memory> dominates on math, while a plain user message dominates on logical deduction.

Explaining Artificial Intelligence (AI) decisions is a major challenge nowadays in AI, in particular when applied to sensitive scenarios like medicine and law. However, the need to explain the rationale behind decisions is a main issue also for human-based deliberation as it is important to justify why a certain decision has been taken. Resident medical doctors for instance are required not only to provide a (possibly correct) diagnosis, but also to explain how they reached a certain conclusion. Developing new tools to aid residents to train their explanation skills is therefore a central objective of AI in education. In this paper, we follow this direction, and we present, to the best of our knowledge, the first multilingual dataset for Medical Question Answering where correct and incorrect diagnoses for a clinical case are enriched with a natural language explanation written by doctors. These explanations have been manually annotated with argument components (i.e., premise, claim) and argument relations (i.e., attack, support), resulting in the Multilingual CasiMedicos-Arg dataset which consists of 558 clinical cases in four languages (English, Spanish, French, Italian) with explanations, where we annotated 5021 claims, 2313 premises, 2431 support relations, and 1106 attack relations. We conclude by showing how competitive baselines perform over this challenging dataset for the argument mining task.

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.

Procedural texts help AI enhance reasoning about context and action sequences. Transforming these into Semantic Role Labeling (SRL) improves understanding of individual steps by identifying predicate-argument structure like {verb,what,where/with}. Procedural instructions are highly elliptic, for instance, (i) add cucumber to the bowl and (ii) add sliced tomatoes, the second step's where argument is inferred from the context, referring to where the cucumber was placed. Prior SRL benchmarks often miss implicit arguments, leading to incomplete understanding. To address this, we introduce Implicit-VidSRL, a dataset that necessitates inferring implicit and explicit arguments from contextual information in multimodal cooking procedures. Our proposed dataset benchmarks multimodal models' contextual reasoning, requiring entity tracking through visual changes in recipes. We study recent multimodal LLMs and reveal that they struggle to predict implicit arguments of what and where/with from multi-modal procedural data given the verb. Lastly, we propose iSRL-Qwen2-VL, which achieves a 17% relative improvement in F1-score for what-implicit and a 14.7% for where/with-implicit semantic roles over GPT-4o.

Role-Playing Agents (RPAs), benefiting from large language models, is an emerging interactive AI system that simulates roles or characters with diverse personalities. However, existing methods primarily focus on mimicking dialogues among roles in textual form, neglecting the role's voice traits (e.g., voice style and emotions) as playing a crucial effect in interaction, which tends to be more immersive experiences in realistic scenarios. Towards this goal, we propose OmniCharacter, a first seamless speech-language personality interaction model to achieve immersive RPAs with low latency. Specifically, OmniCharacter enables agents to consistently exhibit role-specific personality traits and vocal traits throughout the interaction, enabling a mixture of speech and language responses. To align the model with speech-language scenarios, we construct a dataset named OmniCharacter-10K, which involves more distinctive characters (20), richly contextualized multi-round dialogue (10K), and dynamic speech response (135K). Experimental results showcase that our method yields better responses in terms of both content and style compared to existing RPAs and mainstream speech-language models, with a response latency as low as 289ms. Code and dataset are available at https://github.com/AlibabaResearch/DAMO-ConvAI/tree/main/OmniCharacter.

In this paper, we study semantic role labelling (SRL), a subtask of semantic parsing of natural language sentences and its application for the Vietnamese language. We present our effort in building Vietnamese PropBank, the first Vietnamese SRL corpus and a software system for labelling semantic roles of Vietnamese texts. In particular, we present a novel constituent extraction algorithm in the argument candidate identification step which is more suitable and more accurate than the common node-mapping method. In the machine learning part, our system integrates distributed word features produced by two recent unsupervised learning models in two learned statistical classifiers and makes use of integer linear programming inference procedure to improve the accuracy. The system is evaluated in a series of experiments and achieves a good result, an F_1 score of 74.77%. Our system, including corpus and software, is available as an open source project for free research and we believe that it is a good baseline for the development of future Vietnamese SRL systems.

Traditionally, a debate usually requires a manual preparation process, including reading plenty of articles, selecting the claims, identifying the stances of the claims, seeking the evidence for the claims, etc. As the AI debate attracts more attention these years, it is worth exploring the methods to automate the tedious process involved in the debating system. In this work, we introduce a comprehensive and large dataset named IAM, which can be applied to a series of argument mining tasks, including claim extraction, stance classification, evidence extraction, etc. Our dataset is collected from over 1k articles related to 123 topics. Near 70k sentences in the dataset are fully annotated based on their argument properties (e.g., claims, stances, evidence, etc.). We further propose two new integrated argument mining tasks associated with the debate preparation process: (1) claim extraction with stance classification (CESC) and (2) claim-evidence pair extraction (CEPE). We adopt a pipeline approach and an end-to-end method for each integrated task separately. Promising experimental results are reported to show the values and challenges of our proposed tasks, and motivate future research on argument mining.

Recent studies demonstrate that prompting an appropriate role-playing persona to an LLM improves its reasoning capability. However, assigning a proper persona is difficult since an LLM's performance is extremely sensitive to assigned prompts; therefore, personas sometimes hinder LLMs and degrade their reasoning capabilities. In this paper, we propose a novel framework, Jekyll \& Hyde, which ensembles the results of role-playing and neutral prompts to eradicate performance degradation via unilateral use of role-playing prompted LLM and enhance the robustness of an LLM's reasoning ability. Specifically, Jekyll \& Hyde collects two potential solutions from both role-playing and neutral prompts and selects a better solution after cross-checking via an LLM evaluator. However, LLM-based evaluators tend to be affected by the order of those potential solutions within the prompt when selecting the proper solution; thus, we also propose a robust LLM evaluator to mitigate the position bias. The experimental analysis demonstrates that role-playing prompts distract LLMs and degrade their reasoning abilities in 4 out of 12 datasets, even when using GPT-4. In addition, we reveal that Jekyll \& Hyde improves reasoning capabilities by selecting better choices among the potential solutions on twelve widely-used reasoning datasets. We further show that our proposed LLM evaluator outperforms other baselines, proving the LLMs' position bias is successfully mitigated.

Event argument extraction (EAE) identifies event arguments and their specific roles for a given event. Recent advancement in generation-based EAE models has shown great performance and generalizability over classification-based models. However, existing generation-based EAE models mostly focus on problem re-formulation and prompt design, without incorporating additional information that has been shown to be effective for classification-based models, such as the abstract meaning representation (AMR) of the input passages. Incorporating such information into generation-based models is challenging due to the heterogeneous nature of the natural language form prevalently used in generation-based models and the structured form of AMRs. In this work, we study strategies to incorporate AMR into generation-based EAE models. We propose AMPERE, which generates AMR-aware prefixes for every layer of the generation model. Thus, the prefix introduces AMR information to the generation-based EAE model and then improves the generation. We also introduce an adjusted copy mechanism to AMPERE to help overcome potential noises brought by the AMR graph. Comprehensive experiments and analyses on ACE2005 and ERE datasets show that AMPERE can get 4% - 10% absolute F1 score improvements with reduced training data and it is in general powerful across different training sizes.

Role-based learning holds the promise of achieving scalable multi-agent learning by decomposing complex tasks using roles. However, it is largely unclear how to efficiently discover such a set of roles. To solve this problem, we propose to first decompose joint action spaces into restricted role action spaces by clustering actions according to their effects on the environment and other agents. Learning a role selector based on action effects makes role discovery much easier because it forms a bi-level learning hierarchy -- the role selector searches in a smaller role space and at a lower temporal resolution, while role policies learn in significantly reduced primitive action-observation spaces. We further integrate information about action effects into the role policies to boost learning efficiency and policy generalization. By virtue of these advances, our method (1) outperforms the current state-of-the-art MARL algorithms on 10 of the 14 scenarios that comprise the challenging StarCraft II micromanagement benchmark and (2) achieves rapid transfer to new environments with three times the number of agents. Demonstrative videos are available at https://sites.google.com/view/rode-marl .

Although Large Language Model (LLM) agents have demonstrated strong performance on complex tasks, their learning is often limited by inefficient interaction feedback and static training environments, which hinder broader generalization. To address these limitations, this paper introduces Role-Agent, black{a framework} that harnesses a single LLM to function concurrently as both the agent and the environment, enabling a bootstrapped co-evolution. Role-Agent comprises two synergistic components: World-In-Agent (WIA) and Agent-In-World (AIW). In WIA, the LLM acts as the agent and predicts future states after each action; the alignment between predicted and actual states is then used as a process reward, encouraging environment-aware reasoning. In AIW, the LLM analyzes failure modes from failed trajectories and retrieves tasks with similar failure patterns, thereby reshaping the training data distribution for targeted practice. Experiments on multiple benchmarks show that Role-Agent consistently improves performance, yielding an average gain of over 4\% over strong baselines.

Modelling persuasion strategies as predictors of task outcome has several real-world applications and has received considerable attention from the computational linguistics community. However, previous research has failed to account for the resisting strategies employed by an individual to foil such persuasion attempts. Grounded in prior literature in cognitive and social psychology, we propose a generalised framework for identifying resisting strategies in persuasive conversations. We instantiate our framework on two distinct datasets comprising persuasion and negotiation conversations. We also leverage a hierarchical sequence-labelling neural architecture to infer the aforementioned resisting strategies automatically. Our experiments reveal the asymmetry of power roles in non-collaborative goal-directed conversations and the benefits accrued from incorporating resisting strategies on the final conversation outcome. We also investigate the role of different resisting strategies on the conversation outcome and glean insights that corroborate with past findings. We also make the code and the dataset of this work publicly available at https://github.com/americast/resper.

The advanced role-playing capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) have paved the way for developing Role-Playing Agents (RPAs). However, existing benchmarks in social interaction such as HPD and SocialBench have not investigated hallucination and face limitations like poor generalizability and implicit judgments for character fidelity. To address these issues, we propose a generalizable, explicit and effective paradigm to unlock the interactive patterns in diverse worldviews. Specifically, we define the interactive hallucination based on stance transfer and construct a benchmark, SHARP, by extracting relations from a general commonsense knowledge graph and leveraging the inherent hallucination properties of RPAs to simulate interactions across roles. Extensive experiments validate the effectiveness and stability of our paradigm. Our findings further explore the factors influencing these metrics and discuss the trade-off between blind loyalty to roles and adherence to facts in RPAs.

Identifying, classifying, and analyzing arguments in legal discourse has been a prominent area of research since the inception of the argument mining field. However, there has been a major discrepancy between the way natural language processing (NLP) researchers model and annotate arguments in court decisions and the way legal experts understand and analyze legal argumentation. While computational approaches typically simplify arguments into generic premises and claims, arguments in legal research usually exhibit a rich typology that is important for gaining insights into the particular case and applications of law in general. We address this problem and make several substantial contributions to move the field forward. First, we design a new annotation scheme for legal arguments in proceedings of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) that is deeply rooted in the theory and practice of legal argumentation research. Second, we compile and annotate a large corpus of 373 court decisions (2.3M tokens and 15k annotated argument spans). Finally, we train an argument mining model that outperforms state-of-the-art models in the legal NLP domain and provide a thorough expert-based evaluation. All datasets and source codes are available under open lincenses at https://github.com/trusthlt/mining-legal-arguments.

We demonstrate that large language models (LLMs) exhibit consistent value orientations despite adopting diverse personas, revealing a persistent inertia in their responses that remains stable across the variety of roles they are prompted to assume. To systematically explore this phenomenon, we introduce the role-play-at-scale methodology, which involves prompting LLMs with randomized, diverse personas and analyzing the macroscopic trend of their responses. Unlike previous works that simply feed these questions to LLMs as if testing human subjects, our role-play-at-scale methodology diagnoses inherent tendencies in a systematic and scalable manner by: (1) prompting the model to act in different random personas and (2) asking the same question multiple times for each random persona. This approach reveals consistent patterns in LLM responses across diverse role-play scenarios, indicating deeply encoded inherent tendencies. Our findings contribute to the discourse on value alignment in foundation models and demonstrate the efficacy of role-play-at-scale as a diagnostic tool for uncovering encoded biases in LLMs.

We introduce OpenDebateEvidence, a comprehensive dataset for argument mining and summarization sourced from the American Competitive Debate community. This dataset includes over 3.5 million documents with rich metadata, making it one of the most extensive collections of debate evidence. OpenDebateEvidence captures the complexity of arguments in high school and college debates, providing valuable resources for training and evaluation. Our extensive experiments demonstrate the efficacy of fine-tuning state-of-the-art large language models for argumentative abstractive summarization across various methods, models, and datasets. By providing this comprehensive resource, we aim to advance computational argumentation and support practical applications for debaters, educators, and researchers. OpenDebateEvidence is publicly available to support further research and innovation in computational argumentation. Access it here: https://huggingface.co/datasets/Yusuf5/OpenCaselist

Despite the remarkable performance of Large Language Models (LLMs) in natural language processing tasks, they still struggle with generating logically sound arguments, resulting in potential risks such as spreading misinformation. To address this issue, we introduce FIPO, a fallacy-informed framework that leverages preference optimization methods to steer LLMs toward logically sound arguments. FIPO includes a classification loss, to capture the fine-grained information on fallacy types. Our results on argumentation datasets show that our method reduces the fallacy errors by up to 17.5%. Furthermore, our human evaluation results indicate that the quality of the generated arguments by our method significantly outperforms the fine-tuned baselines, as well as other preference optimization methods, such as DPO. These findings highlight the importance of ensuring models are aware of logical fallacies for effective argument generation. Our code is available at github.com/lucamouchel/Logical-Fallacies.

Large reasoning models (LRM) with long chain-of-thought (CoT) capabilities have shown strong performance on objective tasks, such as math reasoning and coding. However, their effectiveness on subjective questions that may have different responses from different perspectives is still limited by a tendency towards homogeneous reasoning, introduced by the reliance on a single ground truth in supervised fine-tuning and verifiable reward in reinforcement learning. Motivated by the finding that increasing role perspectives consistently improves performance, we propose MultiRole-R1, a diversity-enhanced framework with multiple role perspectives, to improve the accuracy and diversity in subjective reasoning tasks. MultiRole-R1 features an unsupervised data construction pipeline that generates reasoning chains that incorporate diverse role perspectives. We further employ reinforcement learning via Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) with reward shaping, by taking diversity as a reward signal in addition to the verifiable reward. With specially designed reward functions, we successfully promote perspective diversity and lexical diversity, uncovering a positive relation between reasoning diversity and accuracy. Our experiment on six benchmarks demonstrates MultiRole-R1's effectiveness and generalizability in enhancing both subjective and objective reasoning, showcasing the potential of diversity-enhanced training in LRMs.

This paper investigates the rational thinking capability of Large Language Models (LLMs) in multi-round argumentative debates by exploring the impact of fallacious arguments on their logical reasoning performance. More specifically, we present Logic Competence Measurement Benchmark (LOGICOM), a diagnostic benchmark to assess the robustness of LLMs against logical fallacies. LOGICOM involves two agents: a persuader and a debater engaging in a multi-round debate on a controversial topic, where the persuader tries to convince the debater of the correctness of its claim. First, LOGICOM assesses the potential of LLMs to change their opinions through reasoning. Then, it evaluates the debater's performance in logical reasoning by contrasting the scenario where the persuader employs logical fallacies against one where logical reasoning is used. We use this benchmark to evaluate the performance of GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 using a dataset containing controversial topics, claims, and reasons supporting them. Our findings indicate that both GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 can adjust their opinion through reasoning. However, when presented with logical fallacies, GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 are erroneously convinced 41% and 69% more often, respectively, compared to when logical reasoning is used. Finally, we introduce a new dataset containing over 5k pairs of logical vs. fallacious arguments. The source code and dataset of this work are made publicly available.

Consider this prompt "Draw a unicorn with two horns". Should large language models (LLMs) recognize that a unicorn has only one horn by definition and ask users for clarifications, or proceed to generate something anyway? We introduce concept incongruence to capture such phenomena where concept boundaries clash with each other, either in user prompts or in model representations, often leading to under-specified or mis-specified behaviors. In this work, we take the first step towards defining and analyzing model behavior under concept incongruence. Focusing on temporal boundaries in the Role-Play setting, we propose three behavioral metrics--abstention rate, conditional accuracy, and answer rate--to quantify model behavior under incongruence due to the role's death. We show that models fail to abstain after death and suffer from an accuracy drop compared to the Non-Role-Play setting. Through probing experiments, we identify two main causes: (i) unreliable encoding of the "death" state across different years, leading to unsatisfactory abstention behavior, and (ii) role playing causes shifts in the model's temporal representations, resulting in accuracy drops. We leverage these insights to improve consistency in the model's abstention and answer behaviors. Our findings suggest that concept incongruence leads to unexpected model behaviors and point to future directions on improving model behavior under concept incongruence.

The advent of Large Language Models (LLMs) has paved the way for complex tasks such as role-playing, which enhances user interactions by enabling models to imitate various characters. However, the closed-source nature of state-of-the-art LLMs and their general-purpose training limit role-playing optimization. In this paper, we introduce RoleLLM, a framework to benchmark, elicit, and enhance role-playing abilities in LLMs. RoleLLM comprises four stages: (1) Role Profile Construction for 100 roles; (2) Context-Based Instruction Generation (Context-Instruct) for role-specific knowledge extraction; (3) Role Prompting using GPT (RoleGPT) for speaking style imitation; and (4) Role-Conditioned Instruction Tuning (RoCIT) for fine-tuning open-source models along with role customization. By Context-Instruct and RoleGPT, we create RoleBench, the first systematic and fine-grained character-level benchmark dataset for role-playing with 168,093 samples. Moreover, RoCIT on RoleBench yields RoleLLaMA (English) and RoleGLM (Chinese), significantly enhancing role-playing abilities and even achieving comparable results with RoleGPT (using GPT-4).

There are two main barriers to using large language models (LLMs) in clinical reasoning. Firstly, while LLMs exhibit significant promise in Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks, their performance in complex reasoning and planning falls short of expectations. Secondly, LLMs use uninterpretable methods to make clinical decisions that are fundamentally different from the clinician's cognitive processes. This leads to user distrust. In this paper, we present a multi-agent framework called ArgMed-Agents, which aims to enable LLM-based agents to make explainable clinical decision reasoning through interaction. ArgMed-Agents performs self-argumentation iterations via Argumentation Scheme for Clinical Discussion (a reasoning mechanism for modeling cognitive processes in clinical reasoning), and then constructs the argumentation process as a directed graph representing conflicting relationships. Ultimately, use symbolic solver to identify a series of rational and coherent arguments to support decision. We construct a formal model of ArgMed-Agents and present conjectures for theoretical guarantees. ArgMed-Agents enables LLMs to mimic the process of clinical argumentative reasoning by generating explanations of reasoning in a self-directed manner. The setup experiments show that ArgMed-Agents not only improves accuracy in complex clinical decision reasoning problems compared to other prompt methods, but more importantly, it provides users with decision explanations that increase their confidence.

We argue that enabling human-AI dialogue, purposed to support joint reasoning (i.e., 'inquiry'), is important for ensuring that AI decision making is aligned with human values and preferences. In particular, we point to logic-based models of argumentation and dialogue, and suggest that the traditional focus on persuasion dialogues be replaced by a focus on inquiry dialogues, and the distinct challenges that joint inquiry raises. Given recent dramatic advances in the performance of large language models (LLMs), and the anticipated increase in their use for decision making, we provide a roadmap for research into inquiry dialogues for supporting joint human-LLM reasoning tasks that are ethically salient, and that thereby require that decisions are value aligned.

This paper investigates the role of dynamic external knowledge integration in improving counter-argument generation using Large Language Models (LLMs). While LLMs have shown promise in argumentative tasks, their tendency to generate lengthy, potentially unfactual responses highlights the need for more controlled and evidence-based approaches. We introduce a new manually curated dataset of argument and counter-argument pairs specifically designed to balance argumentative complexity with evaluative feasibility. We also propose a new LLM-as-a-Judge evaluation methodology that shows a stronger correlation with human judgments compared to traditional reference-based metrics. Our experimental results demonstrate that integrating dynamic external knowledge from the web significantly improves the quality of generated counter-arguments, particularly in terms of relatedness, persuasiveness, and factuality. The findings suggest that combining LLMs with real-time external knowledge retrieval offers a promising direction for developing more effective and reliable counter-argumentation systems.

In this work, we focus on the problem of retrieving relevant arguments for a query claim covering diverse aspects. State-of-the-art methods rely on explicit mappings between claims and premises, and thus are unable to utilize large available collections of premises without laborious and costly manual annotation. Their diversity approach relies on removing duplicates via clustering which does not directly ensure that the selected premises cover all aspects. This work introduces a new multi-step approach for the argument retrieval problem. Rather than relying on ground-truth assignments, our approach employs a machine learning model to capture semantic relationships between arguments. Beyond that, it aims to cover diverse facets of the query, instead of trying to identify duplicates explicitly. Our empirical evaluation demonstrates that our approach leads to a significant improvement in the argument retrieval task even though it requires less data.

Semantic role labeling (SRL) is a central natural language processing (NLP) task aiming to understand the semantic roles within texts, facilitating a wide range of downstream applications. While SRL has garnered extensive and enduring research, there is currently a lack of a comprehensive survey that thoroughly organizes and synthesizes the field. This paper aims to review the entire research trajectory of the SRL community over the past two decades. We begin by providing a complete definition of SRL. To offer a comprehensive taxonomy, we categorize SRL methodologies into four key perspectives: model architectures, syntax feature modeling, application scenarios, and multi-modal extensions. Further, we discuss SRL benchmarks, evaluation metrics, and paradigm modeling approaches, while also exploring practical applications across various domains. Finally, we analyze future research directions in SRL, addressing the evolving role of SRL in the age of large language models (LLMs) and its potential impact on the broader NLP landscape. We maintain a public repository and consistently update related resources at: https://github.com/DreamH1gh/Awesome-SRL

We propose WIBA, a novel framework and suite of methods that enable the comprehensive understanding of "What Is Being Argued" across contexts. Our approach develops a comprehensive framework that detects: (a) the existence, (b) the topic, and (c) the stance of an argument, correctly accounting for the logical dependence among the three tasks. Our algorithm leverages the fine-tuning and prompt-engineering of Large Language Models. We evaluate our approach and show that it performs well in all the three capabilities. First, we develop and release an Argument Detection model that can classify a piece of text as an argument with an F1 score between 79% and 86% on three different benchmark datasets. Second, we release a language model that can identify the topic being argued in a sentence, be it implicit or explicit, with an average similarity score of 71%, outperforming current naive methods by nearly 40%. Finally, we develop a method for Argument Stance Classification, and evaluate the capability of our approach, showing it achieves a classification F1 score between 71% and 78% across three diverse benchmark datasets. Our evaluation demonstrates that WIBA allows the comprehensive understanding of What Is Being Argued in large corpora across diverse contexts, which is of core interest to many applications in linguistics, communication, and social and computer science. To facilitate accessibility to the advancements outlined in this work, we release WIBA as a free open access platform (wiba.dev).

Nowadays the medical domain is receiving more and more attention in applications involving Artificial Intelligence. Clinicians have to deal with an enormous amount of unstructured textual data to make a conclusion about patients' health in their everyday life. Argument mining helps to provide a structure to such data by detecting argumentative components in the text and classifying the relations between them. However, as it is the case for many tasks in Natural Language Processing in general and in medical text processing in particular, the large majority of the work on computational argumentation has been done only for English. This is also the case with the only dataset available for argumentation in the medical domain, namely, the annotated medical data of abstracts of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCT) from the MEDLINE database. In order to mitigate the lack of annotated data for other languages, we empirically investigate several strategies to perform argument mining and classification in medical texts for a language for which no annotated data is available. This project shows that automatically translating and project annotations from English to a target language (Spanish) is an effective way to generate annotated data without manual intervention. Furthermore, our experiments demonstrate that the translation and projection approach outperforms zero-shot cross-lingual approaches using a large masked multilingual language model. Finally, we show how the automatically generated data in Spanish can also be used to improve results in the original English evaluation setting.

Developing intelligent persuasive conversational agents to change people's opinions and actions for social good is the frontier in advancing the ethical development of automated dialogue systems. To do so, the first step is to understand the intricate organization of strategic disclosures and appeals employed in human persuasion conversations. We designed an online persuasion task where one participant was asked to persuade the other to donate to a specific charity. We collected a large dataset with 1,017 dialogues and annotated emerging persuasion strategies from a subset. Based on the annotation, we built a baseline classifier with context information and sentence-level features to predict the 10 persuasion strategies used in the corpus. Furthermore, to develop an understanding of personalized persuasion processes, we analyzed the relationships between individuals' demographic and psychological backgrounds including personality, morality, value systems, and their willingness for donation. Then, we analyzed which types of persuasion strategies led to a greater amount of donation depending on the individuals' personal backgrounds. This work lays the ground for developing a personalized persuasive dialogue system.

LLM-based agents are increasingly used to simulate deliberative interactions such as negotiation, conflict resolution, and multi-turn opinion exchange. Yet generated transcripts often do not reveal why an agent's stance changes: movement may reflect evidence uptake, anchoring, role drift, echoing, or changed prompt and retrieval context. We introduce the Belief Engine (BE), an auditable belief-update layer that treats "belief" as an evidential state over a proposition and exposes it as scalar stance. BE extracts arguments into structured memory and updates stance with a log-odds rule controlled by evidence uptake u and prior anchoring a. Across multiple base LLMs, parameter sweeps show that these controls reliably shape stance dynamics while preserving an evidence-level update trail. On DEBATE, a human deliberation dataset with pre/post opinions, BE best reconstructs participants whose final stance follows extracted evidence; stable and evidence-opposed cases instead point to anchoring or factors outside the extracted evidence stream. BE provides configurable infrastructure for studying evidence-grounded deliberation, where openness, commitment, convergence, and disagreement can be tied to explicit update assumptions rather than hidden prompt effects.

While Large Language Models (LLMs) have catalyzed breakthroughs in automated code generation, Small Language Models (SLMs) often encounter reasoning bottlenecks and failure loops when addressing complex logical requirements. To overcome these challenges, we propose DebateCoder, a multi-agent collaborative framework designed to improve the reasoning ability of SLMs (e.g., Pangu-1B) in resource-constrained environments. DebateCoder uses a structured role-playing protocol with three agents: User Agent (A_UA), Technical Agent (A_TA), and Quality Assurance Agent (A_QA). It also includes an Adaptive Confidence Gating mechanism with a 95% threshold to balance accuracy and inference efficiency. In addition, we introduce a multi-turn deliberation module and a reviewer-guided analytical debugging loop for orthogonal pre-generation debate and post-generation refinement. Experiments on HumanEval and MBPP show that DebateCoder achieves 70.12% Pass@1 on HumanEval, outperforming MapCoder while reducing API overhead by about 35%. These results indicate that collaborative protocols can mitigate limitations of small-parameter models and provide a scalable, efficient approach to high-quality automated software engineering.

Political stance detection in LLMs has long been dominated by closed-ended, multiple-choice political survey questions---originally designed for humans, and thus lacks the realism and nuance of human-AI interactions in the wild, while also being susceptible to sandbagging. The recent IssueBench framework substantially mitigates these limitations with templated prompts anchored in real-world chat logs. Given the rise in non-work-related use of GenAI assistants, we extend IssueBench beyond writing assistance to include two additional tasks, information seeking and opinion sharing. We argue that templated prompts still lack the nuance of real ones, especially for open-ended tasks, and remain recognisable as evaluation artefacts. We propose the use of fully synthetic (LLM-generated) prompts, produced under detailed instructions with real prompts as seeds. We assess the ecological validity of real, templated, and LLM-generated prompts in a small-scale study covering 3 highly contested policy issues and 3 recent geopolitical conflicts. Human and LLM annotators rank LLM-generated prompts as no less realistic than real ones and clearly more realistic than templated ones, and find that they carry their intended intent and stance more clearly; the LLMs separate templated prompts from the other two far more sharply than the humans do. In a case study, templated and LLM-generated prompts yield systematically different stance estimates for the same model, most visibly under neutral framings, where templated prompts overstate the model's leaning in the direction encoded by the topic-and-stance text (filler) slotted into their templates.

This study investigates language models' generative capabilities in tool-use dialogs. We categorize the models' outputs in tool-use dialogs into four distinct types: Tool Call, Answer Completion, Slot Question, and Relevance Detection, which serve as aspects for evaluation. We introduce FunctionChat-Bench, comprising 700 evaluation items and automated assessment programs. Using this benchmark, we evaluate several language models that support function calling. Our findings indicate that while language models may exhibit high accuracy in single-turn Tool Call scenarios, this does not necessarily translate to superior generative performance in multi-turn environments. We argue that the capabilities required for function calling extend beyond generating tool call messages; they must also effectively generate conversational messages that engage the user.

Large Language Models (LLMs) often exhibit sycophancy, distorting responses to align with user beliefs, notably by readily agreeing with user counterarguments. Paradoxically, LLMs are increasingly adopted as successful evaluative agents for tasks such as grading and adjudicating claims. This research investigates that tension: why do LLMs show sycophancy when challenged in subsequent conversational turns, yet perform well when evaluating conflicting arguments presented simultaneously? We empirically tested these contrasting scenarios by varying key interaction patterns. We find that state-of-the-art models: (1) are more likely to endorse a user's counterargument when framed as a follow-up from a user, rather than when both responses are presented simultaneously for evaluation; (2) show increased susceptibility to persuasion when the user's rebuttal includes detailed reasoning, even when the conclusion of the reasoning is incorrect; and (3) are more readily swayed by casually phrased feedback than by formal critiques, even when the casual input lacks justification. Our results highlight the risk of relying on LLMs for judgment tasks without accounting for conversational framing.

Deductive reasoning plays a pivotal role in the formulation of sound and cohesive arguments. It allows individuals to draw conclusions that logically follow, given the truth value of the information provided. Recent progress in the domain of large language models (LLMs) has showcased their capability in executing deductive reasoning tasks. Nonetheless, a significant portion of research primarily assesses the accuracy of LLMs in solving such tasks, often overlooking a deeper analysis of their reasoning behavior. In this study, we draw upon principles from cognitive psychology to examine inferential strategies employed by LLMs, through a detailed evaluation of their responses to propositional logic problems. Our findings indicate that LLMs display reasoning patterns akin to those observed in humans, including strategies like supposition following or chain construction. Moreover, our research demonstrates that the architecture and scale of the model significantly affect its preferred method of reasoning, with more advanced models tending to adopt strategies more frequently than less sophisticated ones. Importantly, we assert that a model's accuracy, that is the correctness of its final conclusion, does not necessarily reflect the validity of its reasoning process. This distinction underscores the necessity for more nuanced evaluation procedures in the field.

This research paper delves into the integration of OpenAI's ChatGPT into embodied agent systems, evaluating its influence on interactive decision-making benchmark. Drawing a parallel to the concept of people assuming roles according to their unique strengths, we introduce InterAct. In this approach, we feed ChatGPT with varied prompts, assigning it a numerous roles like a checker and a sorter, then integrating them with the original language model. Our research shows a remarkable success rate of 98% in AlfWorld, which consists of 6 different tasks in a simulated household environment, emphasizing the significance of proficient prompt engineering. The results highlight ChatGPT's competence in comprehending and performing intricate tasks effectively in real-world settings, thus paving the way for further advancements in task planning.

Rhetorical questions are asked not to seek information but to persuade or signal stance. How large language models internally represent them remains unclear. We analyze rhetorical questions in LLM representations using linear probes on two social-media datasets with different discourse contexts, and find that rhetorical signals emerge early and are most stably captured by last-token representations. Rhetorical questions are linearly separable from information-seeking questions within datasets, and remain detectable under cross-dataset transfer, reaching AUROC around 0.7-0.8. However, we demonstrate that transferability does not simply imply a shared representation. Probes trained on different datasets produce different rankings when applied to the same target corpus, with overlap among the top-ranked instances often below 0.2. Qualitative analysis shows that these divergences correspond to distinct rhetorical phenomena: some probes capture discourse-level rhetorical stance embedded in extended argumentation, while others emphasize localized, syntax-driven interrogative acts. Together, these findings suggest that rhetorical questions in LLM representations are encoded by multiple linear directions emphasizing different cues, rather than a single shared direction.

How a language model internally represents who is speaking, the Assistant, an assigned roleplay persona, or a narrated story character, remains underexplored. We study speaker representations using a dataset of user-expressed emotional text and corresponding model responses. We decompose three generation settings (Assistant, Roleplay, and Story) into sparse autoencoder features extracted at turn-boundary and pronoun-token positions and selected through a filtering pipeline for different depths. We characterize each surviving feature through its steering effects and activation distribution. Our main finding is that the Assistant and roleplay personas are not independent alternatives: personas retain the Assistant-associated feature core while progressively differentiating from it across layers, starting from operational machinery towards behavioral and stylistic features. Meanwhile, generated story characters lack the Assistant-associated core. Both Story and Roleplay can be distinguished from the Assistant with Immersive Simulation Mode. However, the Assistant can sometimes enter or slowly drift into it even in the default setting.

Multi-agent systems built on large language models are increasingly deployed in strategic policy and governance settings, where agents representing stakeholders with conflicting interests must coordinate under shared constraints. These systems typically assign role-based personas to agents, describing their motivations and objectives. Whether agents with role-based identities follow explicit payoffs or their assigned roles in strategic decision-making remains untested. Here we show that assigning role-based personas suppresses payoff-aligned behavior in four-agent strategic games, shifting equilibrium attainment by up to 90 percentage points even when agents have complete payoff information. We test a 2x2 factorial design (persona presence x payoff visibility) across four models (Qwen-7B, Qwen-32B, Llama-8B, Mistral-7B), and 53 environmental policy scenarios with two equilibria: Tragedy of the Commons, where individual payoff dominates, and Green Transition, where collective payoff dominates. With personas present, all models reach near-zero Tragedy equilibrium in the Tragedy-dominant scenarios despite complete payoff information, and 100% of equilibria correspond to Green Transition. No model reaches Tragedy equilibrium by removing personas alone; only Qwen models reach 65-90% Tragedy equilibrium rates when personas are removed, and payoffs are made explicit. Three distinct behavioral profiles emerge: Qwen shifts equilibrium selection based on framing condition, Mistral increases response variance without reaching the Tragedy equilibrium, and Llama holds near-constant across all conditions. Representational choices in multi-agent LLM systems are governance decisions: persona assignment determines which equilibrium a simulation produces, independent of the underlying incentive structure.

Social roles shape expectations, priorities, and judgments, yet it remains unclear how large language models (LLMs) associate occupational identities with broader cultural value patterns. Prior work used nationality-based cultural prompting to study how LLM responses to value-survey questions align with human cultural benchmarks. In this paper, we extend that framework by replacing cultural prompting with occupational prompting to examine how professional-role cues influence value-survey responses in open-weight LLMs. Using a survey-grounded evaluation pipeline based on questions from the Integrated Values Surveys, we project model responses into the two-dimensional Inglehart--Welzel cultural space. We prompt open-weight LLMs to answer questions under occupational identities such as accountant, teacher, engineer, and nurse, and then analyze how these occupation-conditioned responses are positioned on the cultural map. Our results show that when open-weight LLMs are prompted with occupations rather than national identities, their responses remain within a broadly Western-leaning region of the cultural map. However, different occupations introduce shifts within this region, producing distinct occupational skews. This indicates that occupational prompts are not treated as neutral role labels, but instead elicit structured value patterns. These findings extend survey-based evaluation of cultural bias beyond nationality-based prompting and provide a framework for studying how occupational personas shape value expression in LLMs.

Role-Playing Language Agents (RPLAs) are increasingly deployed in high-stakes applications such as healthcare assistance, customer support, and education, where maintaining consistent personas, ethical constraints, and behavioral coherence under adversarial pressure is critical. Existing evaluation approaches rely on static benchmarks or isolated single-turn prompts that fail to capture cumulative behavioral failures emerging over extended interactions. We present a modular multi-agent platform for adversarially stress-testing RPLAs through structured, multi-turn dialogue. The system coordinates three agents: a strategy-driven Interrogator Agent that applies six progressive adversarial strategies, a Target Agent representing the RPLA under evaluation, and an automated Judging Agent that scores behavior across role fidelity, drift, ethical deviation, and consistency dimensions. Through experiments across three personas and three LLM families, we demonstrate that multi-strategy adversarial evaluation reveals failure modes invisible to single-strategy testing, reducing overall robustness scores by 0.17--0.20 points on average. Cross-model validation confirms consistent degradation patterns across Llama-3.3-70B, GPT-4o-mini, and Claude-3.5-Haiku, with Authority Challenge and Emotional Manipulation emerging as the most effective attack strategies. Automated judging achieves strong human alignment (r = 0.82, Fleiss' κ= 0.71). This work is released as an open-source platform to support AI safety and reproducible RPLA benchmarking. While the framework enables systematic discovery of failure modes, we acknowledge potential ethical risks associated with adversarial testing methodologies and emphasize responsible usage for improving AI safety.

This paper takes a first step towards a critical thinking curriculum for neural auto-regressive language models. We introduce a synthetic corpus of deductively valid arguments, and generate artificial argumentative texts to train and evaluate GPT-2. Significant transfer learning effects can be observed: Training a model on three simple core schemes allows it to accurately complete conclusions of different, and more complex types of arguments, too. The language models generalize the core argument schemes in a correct way. Moreover, we obtain consistent and promising results for NLU benchmarks. In particular, pre-training on the argument schemes raises zero-shot accuracy on the GLUE diagnostics by up to 15 percentage points. The findings suggest that intermediary pre-training on texts that exemplify basic reasoning abilities (such as typically covered in critical thinking textbooks) might help language models to acquire a broad range of reasoning skills. The synthetic argumentative texts presented in this paper are a promising starting point for building such a "critical thinking curriculum for language models."

This work provides an explanatory view of how LLMs can apply moral reasoning to both criticize and defend sexist language. We assessed eight large language models, all of which demonstrated the capability to provide explanations grounded in varying moral perspectives for both critiquing and endorsing views that reflect sexist assumptions. With both human and automatic evaluation, we show that all eight models produce comprehensible and contextually relevant text, which is helpful in understanding diverse views on how sexism is perceived. Also, through analysis of moral foundations cited by LLMs in their arguments, we uncover the diverse ideological perspectives in models' outputs, with some models aligning more with progressive or conservative views on gender roles and sexism. Based on our observations, we caution against the potential misuse of LLMs to justify sexist language. We also highlight that LLMs can serve as tools for understanding the roots of sexist beliefs and designing well-informed interventions. Given this dual capacity, it is crucial to monitor LLMs and design safety mechanisms for their use in applications that involve sensitive societal topics, such as sexism.

Existing dialog system models require extensive human annotations and are difficult to generalize to different tasks. The recent success of large pre-trained language models such as BERT and GPT-2 (Devlin et al., 2019; Radford et al., 2019) have suggested the effectiveness of incorporating language priors in down-stream NLP tasks. However, how much pre-trained language models can help dialog response generation is still under exploration. In this paper, we propose a simple, general, and effective framework: Alternating Roles Dialog Model (ARDM). ARDM models each speaker separately and takes advantage of the large pre-trained language model. It requires no supervision from human annotations such as belief states or dialog acts to achieve effective conversations. ARDM outperforms or is on par with state-of-the-art methods on two popular task-oriented dialog datasets: CamRest676 and MultiWOZ. Moreover, we can generalize ARDM to more challenging, non-collaborative tasks such as persuasion. In persuasion tasks, ARDM is capable of generating human-like responses to persuade people to donate to a charity.

As language models shift from single-shot answer generation toward multi-step reasoning that retrieves and consumes evidence mid-inference, evaluating the role of individual retrieved items becomes more important. Existing RAG evaluation typically targets final-answer quality, citation faithfulness, or answer-level attribution, but none of these directly targets the intervention-based, per-evidence-item utility view we study here. We introduce CUE-R, a lightweight intervention-based framework for measuring per-evidence-item operational utility in single-shot RAG using shallow observable retrieval-use traces. CUE-R perturbs individual evidence items via REMOVE, REPLACE, and DUPLICATE operators, then measures changes along three utility axes (correctness, proxy-based grounding faithfulness, and confidence error) plus a trace-divergence signal. We also outline an operational evidence-role taxonomy for interpreting intervention outcomes. Experiments on HotpotQA and 2WikiMultihopQA with Qwen-3 8B and GPT-5.2 reveal a consistent pattern: REMOVE and REPLACE substantially harm correctness and grounding while producing large trace shifts, whereas DUPLICATE is often answer-redundant yet not fully behaviorally neutral. A zero-retrieval control confirms that these effects arise from degradation of meaningful retrieval. A two-support ablation further shows that multi-hop evidence items can interact non-additively: removing both supports harms performance far more than either single removal. Our results suggest that answer-only evaluation misses important evidence effects and that intervention-based utility analysis is a practical complement for RAG evaluation.

In populous countries, pending legal cases have been growing exponentially. There is a need for developing techniques for processing and organizing legal documents. In this paper, we introduce a new corpus for structuring legal documents. In particular, we introduce a corpus of legal judgment documents in English that are segmented into topical and coherent parts. Each of these parts is annotated with a label coming from a list of pre-defined Rhetorical Roles. We develop baseline models for automatically predicting rhetorical roles in a legal document based on the annotated corpus. Further, we show the application of rhetorical roles to improve performance on the tasks of summarization and legal judgment prediction. We release the corpus and baseline model code along with the paper.

Utilizing large language models (LLMs) to achieve role-playing has gained great attention recently. The primary implementation methods include leveraging refined prompts and fine-tuning on role-specific datasets. However, these methods suffer from insufficient precision and limited flexibility respectively. To achieve a balance between flexibility and precision, we construct a Hierarchical Identity Role-Playing Framework (HIRPF) based on identity theory, constructing complex characters using multiple identity combinations. We develop an identity dialogue dataset for this framework and propose an evaluation benchmark including scale evaluation and open situation evaluation. Empirical results indicate the remarkable efficacy of our framework in modeling identity-level role simulation, and reveal its potential for application in social simulation.

Ensuring that online discussions are civil and productive is a major challenge for social media platforms. Such platforms usually rely both on users and on automated detection tools to flag inappropriate arguments of other users, which moderators then review. However, this kind of post-hoc moderation is expensive and time-consuming, and moderators are often overwhelmed by the amount and severity of flagged content. Instead, a promising alternative is to prevent negative behavior during content creation. This paper studies how inappropriate language in arguments can be computationally mitigated. We propose a reinforcement learning-based rewriting approach that balances content preservation and appropriateness based on existing classifiers, prompting an instruction-finetuned large language model (LLM) as our initial policy. Unlike related style transfer tasks, rewriting inappropriate arguments allows deleting and adding content permanently. It is therefore tackled on document level rather than sentence level. We evaluate different weighting schemes for the reward function in both absolute and relative human assessment studies. Systematic experiments on non-parallel data provide evidence that our approach can mitigate the inappropriateness of arguments while largely preserving their content. It significantly outperforms competitive baselines, including few-shot learning, prompting, and humans.

Bias in LLMs can harm user experience and societal outcomes. However, current bias mitigation methods often require intensive human feedback, lack transferability to other topics or yield overconfident and random outputs. We find that involving LLMs in role-playing scenario boosts their ability to recognize and mitigate biases. Based on this, we propose Reinforcement Learning from Multi-role Debates as Feedback (RLDF), a novel approach for bias mitigation replacing human feedback in traditional RLHF. We utilize LLMs in multi-role debates to create a dataset that includes both high-bias and low-bias instances for training the reward model in reinforcement learning. Our approach comprises two modes: (1) self-reflection, where the same LLM participates in multi-role debates, and (2) teacher-student, where a more advanced LLM like GPT-3.5-turbo guides the LLM to perform this task. Experimental results across different LLMs on BBQ and our datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach in bias mitigation. Our source code and datasets are available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/RLDF-E344.

Visual arguments, often used in advertising or social causes, rely on images to persuade viewers to do or believe something. Understanding these arguments requires selective vision: only specific visual stimuli within an image are relevant to the argument, and relevance can only be understood within the context of a broader argumentative structure. While visual arguments are readily appreciated by human audiences, we ask: are today's AI capable of similar understanding? We collect and release VisArgs, an annotated corpus designed to make explicit the (usually implicit) structures underlying visual arguments. VisArgs includes 1,611 images accompanied by three types of textual annotations: 5,112 visual premises (with region annotations), 5,574 commonsense premises, and reasoning trees connecting them to a broader argument. We propose three tasks over VisArgs to probe machine capacity for visual argument understanding: localization of premises, identification of premises, and deduction of conclusions. Experiments demonstrate that 1) machines cannot fully identify the relevant visual cues. The top-performing model, GPT-4-O, achieved an accuracy of only 78.5%, whereas humans reached 98.0%. All models showed a performance drop, with an average decrease in accuracy of 19.5%, when the comparison set was changed from objects outside the image to irrelevant objects within the image. Furthermore, 2) this limitation is the greatest factor impacting their performance in understanding visual arguments. Most models improved the most when given relevant visual premises as additional inputs, compared to other inputs, for deducing the conclusion of the visual argument.

Identifying the quality of free-text arguments has become an important task in the rapidly expanding field of computational argumentation. In this work, we explore the challenging task of argument quality ranking. To this end, we created a corpus of 30,497 arguments carefully annotated for point-wise quality, released as part of this work. To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest dataset annotated for point-wise argument quality, larger by a factor of five than previously released datasets. Moreover, we address the core issue of inducing a labeled score from crowd annotations by performing a comprehensive evaluation of different approaches to this problem. In addition, we analyze the quality dimensions that characterize this dataset. Finally, we present a neural method for argument quality ranking, which outperforms several baselines on our own dataset, as well as previous methods published for another dataset.

The concept of persona, originally adopted in dialogue literature, has re-surged as a promising framework for tailoring large language models (LLMs) to specific context (e.g., personalized search, LLM-as-a-judge). However, the growing research on leveraging persona in LLMs is relatively disorganized and lacks a systematic taxonomy. To close the gap, we present a comprehensive survey to categorize the current state of the field. We identify two lines of research, namely (1) LLM Role-Playing, where personas are assigned to LLMs, and (2) LLM Personalization, where LLMs take care of user personas. Additionally, we introduce existing methods for LLM personality evaluation. To the best of our knowledge, we present the first survey for role-playing and personalization in LLMs under the unified view of persona. We continuously maintain a paper collection to foster future endeavors: https://github.com/MiuLab/PersonaLLM-Survey

Identification of rhetorical roles like facts, arguments, and final judgments is central to understanding a legal case document and can lend power to other downstream tasks like legal case summarization and judgment prediction. However, there are several challenges to this task. Legal documents are often unstructured and contain a specialized vocabulary, making it hard for conventional transformer models to understand them. Additionally, these documents run into several pages, which makes it difficult for neural models to capture the entire context at once. Lastly, there is a dearth of annotated legal documents to train deep learning models. Previous state-of-the-art approaches for this task have focused on using neural models like BiLSTM-CRF or have explored different embedding techniques to achieve decent results. While such techniques have shown that better embedding can result in improved model performance, not many models have focused on utilizing attention for learning better embeddings in sentences of a document. Additionally, it has been recently shown that advanced techniques like multi-task learning can help the models learn better representations, thereby improving performance. In this paper, we combine these two aspects by proposing a novel family of multi-task learning-based models for rhetorical role labeling, named MARRO, that uses transformer-inspired multi-headed attention. Using label shift as an auxiliary task, we show that models from the MARRO family achieve state-of-the-art results on two labeled datasets for rhetorical role labeling, from the Indian and UK Supreme Courts.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated promising potential in providing empathetic support during interactions. However, their responses often become verbose or overly formulaic, failing to adequately address the diverse emotional support needs of real-world scenarios. To tackle this challenge, we propose an innovative strategy-enhanced role-playing framework, designed to simulate authentic emotional support conversations. Specifically, our approach unfolds in two steps: (1) Strategy-Enhanced Role-Playing Interactions, which involve three pivotal roles -- Seeker, Strategy Counselor, and Supporter -- engaging in diverse scenarios to emulate real-world interactions and promote a broader range of dialogues; and (2) Emotional Support Agent Training, achieved through fine-tuning LLMs using our specially constructed dataset. Within this framework, we develop the ServeForEmo dataset, comprising an extensive collection of 3.7K+ multi-turn dialogues and 62.8K+ utterances. We further present SweetieChat, an emotional support agent capable of handling diverse open-domain scenarios. Extensive experiments and human evaluations confirm the framework's effectiveness in enhancing emotional support, highlighting its unique ability to provide more nuanced and tailored assistance.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are powerful candidates for complex decision-making, leveraging vast encoded knowledge and remarkable zero-shot abilities. However, their adoption in high-stakes environments is hindered by their opacity; their outputs lack faithful explanations and cannot be effectively contested to correct errors, undermining trustworthiness. In this paper, we propose ART (Adaptive Reasoning Trees), a hierarchical method for claim verification. The process begins with a root claim, which branches into supporting and attacking child arguments. An argument's strength is determined bottom-up via a pairwise tournament of its children, adjudicated by a judge LLM, allowing a final, transparent and contestable verdict to be systematically derived which is missing in methods like Chain-of-Thought (CoT). We empirically validate ART on multiple datasets, analyzing different argument generators and comparison strategies. Our findings show that ART's structured reasoning outperforms strong baselines, establishing a new benchmark for explainable claim verification which is more reliable and ensures clarity in the overall decision making step.

We introduce Fraud-R1, a benchmark designed to evaluate LLMs' ability to defend against internet fraud and phishing in dynamic, real-world scenarios. Fraud-R1 comprises 8,564 fraud cases sourced from phishing scams, fake job postings, social media, and news, categorized into 5 major fraud types. Unlike previous benchmarks, Fraud-R1 introduces a multi-round evaluation pipeline to assess LLMs' resistance to fraud at different stages, including credibility building, urgency creation, and emotional manipulation. Furthermore, we evaluate 15 LLMs under two settings: 1. Helpful-Assistant, where the LLM provides general decision-making assistance, and 2. Role-play, where the model assumes a specific persona, widely used in real-world agent-based interactions. Our evaluation reveals the significant challenges in defending against fraud and phishing inducement, especially in role-play settings and fake job postings. Additionally, we observe a substantial performance gap between Chinese and English, underscoring the need for improved multilingual fraud detection capabilities.

The rapid evolution of multimodal large models has revolutionized the simulation of diverse characters in speech dialogue systems, enabling a novel interactive paradigm. Character attributes are manifested not only in textual responses but also through vocal features, as speech conveys rich paralinguistic information that is challenging to quantify. This poses significant difficulties in evaluating the character alignment of role-playing agents. To address these challenges, we present RoleJudge, an evaluation framework that leverages audio large language models to systematically assess the alignment between speech and character across multiple modalities and dimensions. Furthermore, we introduce RoleChat, the first voice role-playing evaluation dataset enriched with chain-of-thought reasoning annotations, comprising a diverse set of authentic and LLM-generated speech samples. Utilizing this dataset, we implement a multi-stage training paradigm and incorporate Standard Alignment in reinforcement learning to mitigate reward misalignment during optimization. Experimental results in terms of accuracy and subjective assessment demonstrate that RoleJudge outperforms various baseline models, validating the effectiveness of our multidimensional evaluation framework.

This study examines how persona prompting shapes language generated by two multimodal large language models in urban perception, a setting for examining subjective interpretations of shared visual evidence. We organize outputs into three functional layers: descriptive grounding (captions), intermediate semantic layer (perception tags), and interpretive framing (justifications). Using approximately 60,000 persona-conditioned annotations from each of two MLLMs, Qwen3-VL and Gemma4, we find that captions converge strongly across persona profiles and show only small attribute-associated differences. Justifications vary substantially more: economic status produces the largest difference in both models, with political orientation and personality also prominent. Paired image-level comparisons confirm larger justification than caption differences for these three attributes. For perception tags, personas sharing the same attribute level produce more similar tag sets than personas with different attribute levels, with the largest separation observed for economic status. Exploratory topic analysis further suggests persona-specific evaluative emphasis. Across models, profile-pair similarity patterns are strongly correlated for all three output types, although agreement is lowest for justifications. Overall, persona prompting affects interpretive framing more strongly than descriptive grounding.

Large language models (LLM) have demonstrated remarkable abilities in generating natural language, understanding user instruction, and mimicking human language use. These capabilities have garnered considerable interest in applications such as role-playing. However, the process of collecting individual role scripts (or profiles) data and manually evaluating the performance can be costly. We introduce a framework that uses prompts to leverage the state-of-the-art (SOTA) LLMs to construct role-playing dialogue datasets and evaluate the role-playing performance. Additionally, we employ recall-oriented evaluation Rouge-L metric to support the result of the LLM evaluator.

Recent advancements in Large Language Models empower them to follow freeform instructions, including imitating generic or specific demographic personas in conversations. We define generic personas to represent demographic groups, such as "an Asian person", whereas specific personas may take the form of specific popular Asian names like "Yumi". While the adoption of personas enriches user experiences by making dialogue systems more engaging and approachable, it also casts a shadow of potential risk by exacerbating social biases within model responses, thereby causing societal harm through interactions with users. In this paper, we systematically study "persona biases", which we define to be the sensitivity of dialogue models' harmful behaviors contingent upon the personas they adopt. We categorize persona biases into biases in harmful expression and harmful agreement, and establish a comprehensive evaluation framework to measure persona biases in five aspects: Offensiveness, Toxic Continuation, Regard, Stereotype Agreement, and Toxic Agreement. Additionally, we propose to investigate persona biases by experimenting with UNIVERSALPERSONA, a systematically constructed persona dataset encompassing various types of both generic and specific model personas. Through benchmarking on four different models -- including Blender, ChatGPT, Alpaca, and Vicuna -- our study uncovers significant persona biases in dialogue systems. Our findings also underscore the pressing need to revisit the use of personas in dialogue agents to ensure safe application.

With the exponential growth of research facilitated by modern technology and improved accessibility, scientific discoveries have become increasingly fragmented within and across fields. This makes it challenging to assess the significance, novelty, incremental findings, and equivalent ideas between related works, particularly those from different research communities. Large language models (LLMs) have recently demonstrated strong quantitative and qualitative reasoning abilities, and multi-agent LLM debates have shown promise in handling complex reasoning tasks by exploring diverse perspectives and reasoning paths. Inspired by this, we introduce Tree-of-Debate (ToD), a framework which converts scientific papers into LLM personas that debate their respective novelties. To emphasize structured, critical reasoning rather than focusing solely on outcomes, ToD dynamically constructs a debate tree, enabling fine-grained analysis of independent novelty arguments within scholarly articles. Through experiments on scientific literature across various domains, evaluated by expert researchers, we demonstrate that ToD generates informative arguments, effectively contrasts papers, and supports researchers in their literature review.

Recent debates raised concerns that language models may favor certain viewpoints. But what if the solution is not to aim for a 'view from nowhere' but rather to leverage different viewpoints? We introduce Plurals, a system and Python library for pluralistic AI deliberation. Plurals consists of Agents (LLMs, optionally with personas) which deliberate within customizable Structures, with Moderators overseeing deliberation. Plurals is a generator of simulated social ensembles. Plurals integrates with government datasets to create nationally representative personas, includes deliberation templates inspired by deliberative democracy, and allows users to customize both information-sharing structures and deliberation behavior within Structures. Six case studies demonstrate fidelity to theoretical constructs and efficacy. Three randomized experiments show simulated focus groups produced output resonant with an online sample of the relevant audiences (chosen over zero-shot generation in 75% of trials). Plurals is both a paradigm and a concrete system for pluralistic AI. The Plurals library is available at https://github.com/josh-ashkinaze/plurals and will be continually updated.

Role-playing agents (RPAs) have attracted growing interest for their ability to simulate immersive and interactive characters. However, existing approaches primarily focus on static role profiles, overlooking the dynamic perceptual abilities inherent to humans. To bridge this gap, we introduce the concept of dynamic role profiles by incorporating video modality into RPAs. To support this, we construct Role-playing-Video60k, a large-scale, high-quality dataset comprising 60k videos and 700k corresponding dialogues. Based on this dataset, we develop a comprehensive RPA framework that combines adaptive temporal sampling with both dynamic and static role profile representations. Specifically, the dynamic profile is created by adaptively sampling video frames and feeding them to the LLM in temporal order, while the static profile consists of (1) character dialogues from training videos during fine-tuning, and (2) a summary context from the input video during inference. This joint integration enables RPAs to generate greater responses. Furthermore, we propose a robust evaluation method covering eight metrics. Experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of our framework, highlighting the importance of dynamic role profiles in developing RPAs.

We present a study on how and where personas -- defined by distinct sets of human characteristics, values, and beliefs -- are encoded in the representation space of large language models (LLMs). Using a range of dimension reduction and pattern recognition methods, we first identify the model layers that show the greatest divergence in encoding these representations. We then analyze the activations within a selected layer to examine how specific personas are encoded relative to others, including their shared and distinct embedding spaces. We find that, across multiple pre-trained decoder-only LLMs, the analyzed personas show large differences in representation space only within the final third of the decoder layers. We observe overlapping activations for specific ethical perspectives -- such as moral nihilism and utilitarianism -- suggesting a degree of polysemy. In contrast, political ideologies like conservatism and liberalism appear to be represented in more distinct regions. These findings help to improve our understanding of how LLMs internally represent information and can inform future efforts in refining the modulation of specific human traits in LLM outputs. Warning: This paper includes potentially offensive sample statements.

Recent work within the Argument Mining community has shown the applicability of Natural Language Processing systems for solving problems found within competitive debate. One of the most important tasks within competitive debate is for debaters to create high quality debate cases. We show that effective debate cases can be constructed using constrained shortest path traversals on Argumentative Semantic Knowledge Graphs. We study this potential in the context of a type of American Competitive Debate, called Policy Debate, which already has a large scale dataset targeting it called DebateSum. We significantly improve upon DebateSum by introducing 53180 new examples, as well as further useful metadata for every example, to the dataset. We leverage the txtai semantic search and knowledge graph toolchain to produce and contribute 9 semantic knowledge graphs built on this dataset. We create a unique method for evaluating which knowledge graphs are better in the context of producing policy debate cases. A demo which automatically generates debate cases, along with all other code and the Knowledge Graphs, are open-sourced and made available to the public here: https://github.com/Hellisotherpeople/DebateKG

Foundation models, alongside advances in learned game-world models, are reshaping AI across the game lifecycle. Beyond playing games, recent systems model players and game dynamics, support design and development, adapt player-facing experiences at runtime, and evaluate resulting artifacts. Yet these directions have evolved largely separately, obscuring which capabilities transfer across settings and which remain tied to particular games, engines, interfaces, or player populations. We organize the literature into six roles according to the immediate use of AI output: playing and acting; modeling players and games; designing games; building and maintaining games; generating and adapting at runtime; and testing and evaluating games. For each role, we examine what structure is supplied by the game or workflow, what AI learns or produces, which capabilities and artifacts transfer across settings and roles, and what evidence supports the claims. We identify cross-role connections: trajectories train world models, learned environments provide experience for agents, design specifications drive executable implementations, and play or testing feedback guides revision. However, control schemes, rules, engine interfaces, state representations, and player contexts often remain setting-specific, so downstream claims require validation in the target setting. Evaluation is most standardized for bounded game playing and selected learned environments, while persistent state in learned worlds, repeated software revision, validated player modeling, sustained runtime adaptation, and representative automated testing remain less established. The central challenge is to reuse or transfer outputs and capabilities across roles while re-establishing evidence for effectiveness in the game-specific contexts where they are used.

Text-to-image diffusion models consistently fail at generating counter-stereotypical action relationships (e.g., "mouse chasing cat"), defaulting to frequent stereotypes even when explicitly prompted otherwise. Through systematic investigation, we discover this limitation stems from distributional biases rather than inherent model constraints. Our key insight reveals that while models fail on rare compositions when their inversions are common, they can successfully generate similar intermediate compositions (e.g., "mouse chasing boy"). To test this hypothesis, we develop a Role-Bridging Decomposition framework that leverages these intermediates to gradually teach rare relationships without architectural modifications. We introduce ActionBench, a comprehensive benchmark specifically designed to evaluate action-based relationship generation across stereotypical and counter-stereotypical configurations. Our experiments validate that intermediate compositions indeed facilitate counter-stereotypical generation, with both automatic metrics and human evaluations showing significant improvements over existing approaches. This work not only identifies fundamental biases in current text-to-image systems but demonstrates a promising direction for addressing them through compositional reasoning.

Courts must justify their decisions, but systematically analyzing judicial reasoning at scale remains difficult. This study tests claims about formalistic judging in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) by developing automated methods to detect and classify judicial reasoning in decisions of Czech Supreme Courts using state-of-the-art natural language processing methods. We create the MADON dataset of 272 decisions from two Czech Supreme Courts with expert annotations of 9,183 paragraphs with eight argument types and holistic formalism labels for supervised training and evaluation. Using a corpus of 300,511 Czech court decisions, we adapt transformer LLMs to Czech legal domain through continued pretraining and we experiment with methods to address dataset imbalance including asymmetric loss and class weighting. The best models can detect argumentative paragraphs (82.6% Bal-F1), classify traditional types of legal argument (77.5% Bal-F1), and classify decisions as formalistic/non-formalistic (83.8% Bal-F1). Our three-stage pipeline combining ModernBERT, Llama 3.1, and traditional feature-based machine learning achieves promising results for decision classification while reducing computational costs and increasing explainability. Empirically, we challenge prevailing narratives about CEE formalism. We demonstrate that legal argument mining enables promising judicial philosophy classification and highlight its potential for other important tasks in computational legal studies. Our methodology can be used across jurisdictions, and our entire pipeline, datasets, guidelines, models, and source codes are available at https://github.com/trusthlt/madon.

When assisting human users in reinforcement learning (RL), we can represent users as RL agents and study key parameters, called user traits, to inform intervention design. We study the relationship between user behaviors (policy classes) and user traits. Given an environment, we introduce an intuitive tool for studying the breakdown of "user types": broad sets of traits that result in the same behavior. We show that seemingly different real-world environments admit the same set of user types and formalize this observation as an equivalence relation defined on environments. By transferring intervention design between environments within the same equivalence class, we can help rapidly personalize interventions.

In this paper, we address the task of semantic segmentation of legal documents through rhetorical role classification, with a focus on Indian legal judgments. We introduce LegalSeg, the largest annotated dataset for this task, comprising over 7,000 documents and 1.4 million sentences, labeled with 7 rhetorical roles. To benchmark performance, we evaluate multiple state-of-the-art models, including Hierarchical BiLSTM-CRF, TransformerOverInLegalBERT (ToInLegalBERT), Graph Neural Networks (GNNs), and Role-Aware Transformers, alongside an exploratory RhetoricLLaMA, an instruction-tuned large language model. Our results demonstrate that models incorporating broader context, structural relationships, and sequential sentence information outperform those relying solely on sentence-level features. Additionally, we conducted experiments using surrounding context and predicted or actual labels of neighboring sentences to assess their impact on classification accuracy. Despite these advancements, challenges persist in distinguishing between closely related roles and addressing class imbalance. Our work underscores the potential of advanced techniques for improving legal document understanding and sets a strong foundation for future research in legal NLP.