ARGUS: Theory-of-Mind Guided Argument Generation with Strategy-Aware Planning and Knowledge Grounding

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.20405v2
• Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2026 01:52:56 GMT
• Title: ARGUS: Theory-of-Mind Guided Argument Generation with Strategy-Aware Planning and Knowledge Grounding
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 5.0921317897723215
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Persuasive argument generation requires modeling audience beliefs, rhetorical strategies, and factual grounding. Despite recent advancements, existing methods remain largely audience-agnostic and fail to integrate strategy selection to improve persuasiveness. To bridge this gap, we propose Argus, an agent-based framework that operationalizes classical rhetoric for persuasive writing. 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. This representation conditions a component-aware planner that decomposes the argument into subtopics, assigns fine-grained rhetorical functions (logos, pathos, ethos), and triggers strategy-guided evidence retrieval at planning time. Finally, a refinement module iteratively targets and resolves multi-dimensional weaknesses without quality regression. We evaluate Argus across three diverse benchmarks using both automated pairwise Elo and LLM-as-judge metrics. Results show that Argus consistently outperforms strong baselines across multiple backbone models, achieving top rankings and the highest overall scores. Targeted simulation experiments further validate its effectiveness in shifting resistant audience stances.

Related papers

• GRASP: Deterministic argument ranking in interaction graphs [65.66879897437157]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-18T21:49:02Z)
• Change My View? The Dynamics of Persuasion and Polarization in Online Discourse [6.390103958990699]
  We use large language models to analyze a corpus of debates on Reddit's r/ChangeMyView.<n>We find that effective public reasoning depends as much on relational framing as on evidential content.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-08T18:40:51Z)
• Bridging Perception and Reasoning: Token Reweighting for RLVR in Multimodal LLMs [51.60575965819268]
  We propose a plug-and-play Token-Reweighting (ToR) strategy that explicitly models this interdependence.<n>ToR delivers consistent performance gains across multiple multi-modal reasoning benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-26T06:25:27Z)
• On Theoretically-Driven LLM Agents for Multi-Dimensional Discourse Analysis [0.0]
  This paper presents a comparative multi-agent framework designed to quantify the benefits of incorporating explicit theoretical knowledge for this task.<n>We utilise a dataset of annotated political debates to establish a new standard encompassing four distinct rephrase functions.<n>We evaluate two parallel LLM-based agent systems: one enhanced by argumentation theory via Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), and an identical zero-shot baseline.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-14T10:30:39Z)
• SAD: A Large-Scale Strategic Argumentative Dialogue Dataset [60.33125467375306]
  In practice, argumentation is often realized as multi-turn dialogue.<n>We present the first large-scale textbfStrategic textbfArgumentative textbfDialogue dataset, consisting of 392,822 examples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-12T11:11:37Z)
• Adversarial Yet Cooperative: Multi-Perspective Reasoning in Retrieved-Augmented Language Models [72.4149653187766]
  We propose a Reasoner-Verifier framework named Adrialversa Reasoning RAG (ARR)<n>The Reasoner and Verifier engage in reasoning on retrieved evidence and critiquing each other's logic while being guided by process-aware advantage.<n> Experiments on multiple benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness of our method.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-08T06:57:03Z)
• ROVER: Benchmarking Reciprocal Cross-Modal Reasoning for Omnimodal Generation [79.17352367219736]
  ROVER tests the use of one modality to guide, verify, or refine outputs in the other.<n>ROVER is a human-annotated benchmark that explicitly targets reciprocal cross-modal reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-03T02:27:46Z)
• A Generalizable Rhetorical Strategy Annotation Model Using LLM-based Debate Simulation and Labelling [35.2732875767252]
  We propose a novel framework that leverages large language models (LLMs) to automatically generate and label synthetic debate data based on a four-part rhetorical typology (causal, empirical, emotional, moral)<n>Our model achieves high performance and strong generalization across topical domains.<n>We illustrate two applications with the fine-tuned model: (1) the improvement in persuasiveness prediction from incorporating rhetorical strategy labels, and (2) analyzing temporal and partisan shifts in rhetorical strategies in U.S. Presidential debates (1960-2020)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-16T18:51:23Z)
• DialogueReason: Rule-Based RL Sparks Dialogue Reasoning in LLMs [54.4857963044859]
  We propose DialogueReason, a reasoning paradigm that uncovers the lost roles in monologue-style reasoning models.<n>Our work consists of an analysis of monologue reasoning patterns and the development of a dialogue-based reasoning approach.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-11T16:39:58Z)
• Contextualizing Argument Quality Assessment with Relevant Knowledge [11.367297319588411]
  SPARK is a novel method for scoring argument quality based on contextualization via relevant knowledge. We devise four augmentations that leverage large language models to provide feedback, infer hidden assumptions, supply a similar-quality argument, or give a counter-argument.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-20T21:04:58Z)
• Weakly-Supervised Hierarchical Models for Predicting Persuasive Strategies in Good-faith Textual Requests [22.58861442978803]
  We introduce a large-scale multi-domain text corpus for modeling persuasive strategies in good-faith text requests. We design a hierarchical weakly-supervised latent variable model that can leverage partially labeled data to predict such associated persuasive strategies for each sentence. Experimental results showed that our proposed method outperformed existing semi-supervised baselines significantly.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-16T02:31:04Z)

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.