Multi-Agent Dialectical Refinement for Enhanced Argument Classification
Argument Mining (AM) is a foundational technology for automated writing evaluation, yet traditional supervised approaches rely heavily on expensive, domain-specific fine-tuning. While Large Language Models (LLMs) offer a training-free alternative, they often struggle with structural ambiguity, failing to distinguish between similar components like Claims and Premises. Furthermore, single-agent self-correction mechanisms often suffer from sycophancy, where the model reinforces its own initial errors rather than critically evaluating them. We introduce MAD-ACC (Multi-Agent Debate for Argument Component Classification), a framework that leverages dialectical refinement to resolve classification uncertainty. MAD-ACC utilizes a Proponent-Opponent-Judge model where agents defend conflicting interpretations of ambiguous text, exposing logical nuances that single-agent models miss. Evaluation on the UKP Student Essays corpus demonstrates that MAD-ACC achieves a Macro F1 score of 85.7%, significantly outperforming single-agent reasoning baselines, without requiring domain-specific training. Additionally, unlike "black-box" classifiers, MAD-ACC's dialectical approach offers a transparent and explainable alternative by generating human-readable debate transcripts that explain the reasoning behind decisions.
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Tasks
Component ClassificationArgument MiningSimilar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
Dialectical Reconciliation via Structured Argumentative Dialogues
We present a novel framework designed to extend model reconciliation approaches, commonly used in human-aware planning, for enhanced human-AI interaction. By adopting a structured argumentation-based dialogue paradigm, o…
AI AgentHeterogeneous Debate Engine: Identity-Grounded Cognitive Architecture for Resilient LLM-Based Ethical Tutoring
Large Language Models (LLMs) are being increasingly used as autonomous agents in complex reasoning tasks, opening the niche for dialectical interactions. However, Multi-Agent systems implemented with systematically uncon…
From Argument Components to Graphs: A Multi-Agent Debate with Confidence Gating for Argument Relations
Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly assessed and utilized in the field of Argument Mining (AM), thanks to their strong general reasoning capabilities. However, standard training-free models often miss sophistic…
Component ClassificationArgument MiningCounting Moves, Weighing Voices: Bayesian Dialectical Argumentation for Calibrated Multi-LLM Councils under Persistent Adversaries
A multi-LLM \emph{council} lets several large language models (LLMs) deliberate on a question and return an answer together with a confidence estimate. As these systems become increasingly used for reasoning, that confid…
Mitigating Manipulation and Enhancing Persuasion: A Reflective Multi-Agent Approach for Legal Argument Generation
Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly explored for legal argument generation, yet they pose significant risks of manipulation through hallucination and ungrounded persuasion, and often fail to utilize provided fa…
Hallucination