Mitigating Manipulation and Enhancing Persuasion: A Reflective Multi-Agent Approach for Legal Argument Generation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2506.02992v1
• Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2025 15:28:30 GMT
• Title: Mitigating Manipulation and Enhancing Persuasion: A Reflective Multi-Agent Approach for Legal Argument Generation
• Authors: Li Zhang, Kevin D. Ashley,
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly explored for legal argument generation.<n>LLMs pose significant risks of manipulation through hallucination and ungrounded persuasion.<n>This paper introduces a novel reflective multi-agent method designed to address these challenges.
• Score: 4.329583019758787
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: 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 factual bases effectively or abstain when arguments are untenable. This paper introduces a novel reflective multi-agent method designed to address these challenges in the context of legally compliant persuasion. Our approach employs specialized agents--a Factor Analyst and an Argument Polisher--in an iterative refinement process to generate 3-ply legal arguments (plaintiff, defendant, rebuttal). We evaluate Reflective Multi-Agent against single-agent, enhanced-prompt single-agent, and non-reflective multi-agent baselines using four diverse LLMs (GPT-4o, GPT-4o-mini, Llama-4-Maverick-17b-128e, Llama-4-Scout-17b-16e) across three legal scenarios: "arguable", "mismatched", and "non-arguable". Results demonstrate Reflective Multi-Agent's significant superiority in successful abstention (preventing generation when arguments cannot be grounded), marked improvements in hallucination accuracy (reducing fabricated and misattributed factors), particularly in "non-arguable" scenarios, and enhanced factor utilization recall (improving the use of provided case facts). These findings suggest that structured reflection within a multi-agent framework offers a robust computable method for fostering ethical persuasion and mitigating manipulation in LLM-based legal argumentation systems, a critical step towards trustworthy AI in law. Project page: https://lizhang-aiandlaw.github.io/A-Reflective-Multi-Agent-Approach-for-Legal-Argument-Generation/

Related papers

• MArgE: Meshing Argumentative Evidence from Multiple Large Language Models for Justifiable Claim Verification [12.449402503089164]
  We introduce MArgE, a novel framework to provide formal structure to the evidence from each large language model.<n>We show experimentally that MArgE can significantly outperform single LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-04T16:40:02Z)
• Measuring Faithfulness and Abstention: An Automated Pipeline for Evaluating LLM-Generated 3-ply Case-Based Legal Arguments [4.151328330778482]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate potential in complex legal tasks like argument generation.<n>This paper introduces an automated pipeline to evaluate LLM performance on this task.<n>We define hallucination as the generation of factors not present in the input case materials and abstention as the model's ability to refrain from generating arguments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-31T19:56:40Z)
• When Persuasion Overrides Truth in Multi-Agent LLM Debates: Introducing a Confidence-Weighted Persuasion Override Rate (CW-POR) [0.46040036610482665]
  In many real-world scenarios, a single Large Language Model (LLM) may encounter contradictory claims-some accurate, others forcefully incorrect-and must judge which is true.<n>We investigate this risk in a single-turn, multi-agent debate framework: one LLM-based agent provides a factual answer from TruthfulQA, another vigorously defends a falsehood, and the same architecture serves as judge.<n>We introduce the Confidence-Weighted Persuasion Rate (CW-POR), which captures not only how often the judge is deceived but also how strongly it believes the incorrect choice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-01T02:45:02Z)
• ReMA: Learning to Meta-think for LLMs with Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning [53.817538122688944]
  We introduce Reinforced Meta-thinking Agents (ReMA) to elicit meta-thinking behaviors from Reasoning of Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>ReMA decouples the reasoning process into two hierarchical agents: a high-level meta-thinking agent responsible for generating strategic oversight and plans, and a low-level reasoning agent for detailed executions.<n> Empirical results from single-turn experiments demonstrate that ReMA outperforms single-agent RL baselines on complex reasoning tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-12T16:05:31Z)
• Turning Logic Against Itself : Probing Model Defenses Through Contrastive Questions [51.51850981481236]
  We introduce POATE, a novel jailbreak technique that harnesses contrastive reasoning to provoke unethical responses.<n>PoATE crafts semantically opposing intents and integrates them with adversarial templates, steering models toward harmful outputs with remarkable subtlety.<n>To counter this, we propose Intent-Aware CoT and Reverse Thinking CoT, which decompose queries to detect malicious intent and reason in reverse to evaluate and reject harmful responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-03T15:40:03Z)
• Improving LLM Reasoning with Multi-Agent Tree-of-Thought Validator Agent [9.439315294704368]
  Tree of Thoughts (ToT) methods have shown potential in improving reasoning for complex question-answering tasks. A critical limitation in multi-agent reasoning is the 'Reasoner' agent's shallow exploration of reasoning paths. We introduce a novel approach combining ToT-based Reasoner agents with a Thought Validator agent. Our method demonstrates superior performance compared to existing techniques when evaluated on the GSM8K dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-17T19:54:37Z)
• Think Twice Before Trusting: Self-Detection for Large Language Models through Comprehensive Answer Reflection [90.71323430635593]
  We propose a novel self-detection paradigm that considers the comprehensive answer space beyond LLM-generated answers. Building upon this paradigm, we introduce a two-step framework, which firstly instructs LLM to reflect and provide justifications for each candidate answer. This framework can be seamlessly integrated with existing approaches for superior self-detection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-15T02:38:26Z)
• Rethinking the Bounds of LLM Reasoning: Are Multi-Agent Discussions the Key? [84.36332588191623]
  We propose a novel group discussion framework to enrich the set of discussion mechanisms. We observe that the multi-agent discussion performs better than a single agent only when there is no demonstration in the prompt.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-28T12:04:05Z)
• "Reasoning" with Rhetoric: On the Style-Evidence Tradeoff in LLM-Generated Counter-Arguments [11.243184875465788]
  Large language models (LLMs) play a key role in generating evidence-based and stylistic counter-arguments.<n>Previous research often neglects the balance between evidentiality and style, which are crucial for persuasive arguments.<n>We evaluated the effectiveness of stylized evidence-based counter-argument generation in Counterfire, a new dataset of 38,000 counter-arguments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-13T14:53:12Z)
• Self-RAG: Learning to Retrieve, Generate, and Critique through Self-Reflection [74.51523859064802]
  We introduce a new framework called Self-Reflective Retrieval-Augmented Generation (Self-RAG) Self-RAG enhances an LM's quality and factuality through retrieval and self-reflection. It significantly outperforms state-of-the-art LLMs and retrieval-augmented models on a diverse set of tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-17T18:18:32Z)
• Encouraging Divergent Thinking in Large Language Models through Multi-Agent Debate [85.3444184685235]
  We propose a Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) framework, in which multiple agents express their arguments in the state of "tit for tat" and a judge manages the debate process to obtain a final solution. Our framework encourages divergent thinking in LLMs which would be helpful for tasks that require deep levels of contemplation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-30T15:25:45Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.