GRASP: Deterministic argument ranking in interaction graphs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.19141v1
• Date: Mon, 18 May 2026 21:49:02 GMT
• Title: GRASP: Deterministic argument ranking in interaction graphs
• Abstract summary: We show that holistic judging suffers from substantial inter-model disagreement.<n>This instability arises from collapsing a debate's complex interaction structure into a single opaque score.<n>We propose GRASP, a deterministic framework that aggregates stable local interaction judgments into a global ranking.
• Score: 65.66879897437157
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models are increasingly deployed as automated judges to evaluate the strength of arguments. As this role expands, their legitimacy depends on consistency, transparency, and the ability to separate argumentative structure from rhetorical appeal. However, we show that holistic judging - a common LLM-as-a-Judge practice where a model provides a global verdict on a debate - suffers from substantial inter-model disagreement. We argue that this instability arises from collapsing a debate's complex interaction structure into a single opaque score. To address this, we propose GRASP (Gradual Ranking with Attacks and Support Propagation), a deterministic framework that aggregates stable local interaction judgments into a global ranking via a convergent attack--defense propagation operator. We show that local interaction judgments are more reproducible than holistic rankings in LLM-as-a-Judge evaluations, allowing GRASP to produce more consistent global rankings. We further show that GRASP scores do not correlate with human "convincingness" labels, highlighting a vital sociotechnical distinction: GRASP does not measure persuasion, factuality, or rhetorical appeal, but structural sufficiency - a defense-aware notion of argument robustness over the explicit interaction graph. Overall, GRASP offers a transparent and auditable alternative to holistic LLM judging.

Related papers

• ARGUS: Theory-of-Mind Guided Argument Generation with Strategy-Aware Planning and Knowledge Grounding [5.0921317897723215]
  We propose Argus, an agent-based framework that operationalizes classical rhetoric for persuasive writing.<n>At its core, a Theory-of-Mind (ToM) Reasoner constructs an explicit dual mental model of the audience's beliefs and values to guide downstream decisions.<n>We evaluate Argus across three diverse benchmarks using both automated pairwise Elo and LLM-as-judge metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-06T02:26:10Z)
• Inference-Time Steering for Cross-Lingual Factual Consistency in LLMs [51.56484100374058]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate remarkable multilingual fluency, but their internal knowledge representations remain disproportionately biased toward high-resource languages.<n>We investigate whether these biases can be mitigated at inference time, forcing an English-prompted model to answer as if it were queried in target languages.<n>Experiments on Gemma 3 12B Instruct reveal persona prompting to be the strongest overall intervention, balancing efficacy, safety, and out-of-domain generalization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-21T16:15:05Z)
• MADRAG: Multi-Agent Debate with Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Training-Free Analytic Essay Scoring [6.092300706830162]
  We present MADRAG, a training-free framework for analytic essay scoring.<n>An Advocate identifies strengths, a Skeptic weaknesses, and a Judge aggregates their arguments into a final score.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-04T22:32:47Z)
• Mitigating Perceptual Judgment Bias in Multimodal LLM-as-a-Judge via Perceptual Perturbation and Reward Modeling [35.945096782147864]
  MLLM judges tend to reward plausible narratives over perceptually correct answers when visual evidence conflicts with textual cues.<n>We introduce the Perceptually Perturbed Judgment dataset, which constructs minimally edited counterfactual responses.<n>We develop a unified training framework that combines a structured GRPO-based reward with a batch-ranking objective, achieving coherent global ordering without explicit pairwise labels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-01T17:59:46Z)
• SAVOIR: Learning Social Savoir-Faire via Shapley-based Reward Attribution [82.31558282651811]
  Social intelligence, the ability to navigate complex interpersonal interactions, presents a fundamental challenge for language agents.<n>Existing approaches directly employ language models to distribute episode-level rewards, yielding attributions that are retrospective and lack theoretical grounding.<n>We propose SAVOIR, a novel principled framework grounded in cooperative game theory.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-21T02:08:25Z)
• LaSER: Internalizing Explicit Reasoning into Latent Space for Dense Retrieval [74.72139580745511]
  LaSER is a novel self-distillation framework that internalizes explicit reasoning into the latent space of retrievers.<n>Our method successfully combines the reasoning depth of explicit CoT pipelines with the inference efficiency of standard dense retrievers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-02T04:11:18Z)
• AREG: Adversarial Resource Extraction Game for Evaluating Persuasion and Resistance in Large Language Models [0.0]
  We introduce the Adversarial Resource Extraction Game (AREG), a benchmark that operationalizes persuasion and resistance as a multi-turn, zero-sum negotiation over financial resources.<n>Using a round-robin tournament across frontier models, AREG enables joint evaluation of offensive (persuasion) and defensive (resistance) capabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-18T17:28:28Z)
• Benchmarking at the Edge of Comprehension [38.43582342860192]
  If benchmarking becomes infeasible, our ability to measure any progress in AI is at stake.<n>We propose Critique-Resilient Benchmarking, an adversarial framework designed to compare models even when full human understanding is infeasible.<n>Unlike standard benchmarking, humans serve as bounded verifiers and focus on localized claims.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-15T20:51:29Z)
• Towards Generalizable Reasoning: Group Causal Counterfactual Policy Optimization for LLM Reasoning [50.352417879912515]
  Large language models (LLMs) excel at complex tasks with advances in reasoning capabilities.<n>We propose Group Causal Counterfactual Policy Optimization to explicitly train LLMs to learn generalizable reasoning patterns.<n>We then construct token-level advantages from this reward and optimize the policy, encouraging LLMs to favor reasoning patterns that are process-valid and counterfactually robust.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-06T08:03:11Z)
• JAF: Judge Agent Forest [8.150475950851359]
  We introduce JAF: Judge Agent Forest, a framework in which the judge agent conducts joint inference across a cohort of query--response pairs.<n>We develop a flexible locality-sensitive hashing algorithm that learns informative binary codes by integrating semantic embeddings.<n>We validate JAF with an empirical study on the demanding task of cloud misconfigs triage in large-scale cloud environments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-29T19:42:42Z)
• Can You Trick the Grader? Adversarial Persuasion of LLM Judges [15.386741140145205]
  This study is the first to reveal that strategically embedded persuasive language can bias LLM judges when scoring mathematical reasoning tasks.<n>We formalize seven persuasion techniques (Majority, Consistency, Flattery, Reciprocity, Pity, Authority, Identity) and embed them into otherwise identical responses.<n>We find that persuasive language leads LLM judges to assign inflated scores to incorrect solutions, by up to 8% on average, with Consistency causing the most severe distortion.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-11T09:45:02Z)
• RAG-Zeval: Towards Robust and Interpretable Evaluation on RAG Responses through End-to-End Rule-Guided Reasoning [64.46921169261852]
  RAG-Zeval is a novel end-to-end framework that formulates faithfulness and correctness evaluation as a rule-guided reasoning task.<n>Our approach trains evaluators with reinforcement learning, facilitating compact models to generate comprehensive and sound assessments.<n>Experiments demonstrate RAG-Zeval's superior performance, achieving the strongest correlation with human judgments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-28T14:55:33Z)
• Retrieval is Not Enough: Enhancing RAG Reasoning through Test-Time Critique and Optimization [58.390885294401066]
  Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has become a widely adopted paradigm for enabling knowledge-grounded large language models (LLMs)<n>RAG pipelines often fail to ensure that model reasoning remains consistent with the evidence retrieved, leading to factual inconsistencies or unsupported conclusions.<n>We propose AlignRAG, a novel iterative framework grounded in Critique-Driven Alignment (CDA)<n>We introduce AlignRAG-auto, an autonomous variant that dynamically terminates refinement, removing the need to pre-specify the number of critique iterations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-21T04:56:47Z)

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.