Reasoning or Rambling? Exploring the Effect of Thinking on Agent Persuasion

Persuasion is a core dynamic of natural language communication, shaping how large language models (LLMs) update beliefs, resolve disagreements, and reach decisions. As LLMs increasingly debate, advise, and think collaboratively with humans and each other, resistance to harmful persuasion becomes a core requirement for reliable behavior. Yet we show that this requirement is far from met: a single targeted persuasive argument is enough to collapse model accuracy to near zero, even when the argument is factually false. We formalize this threat as adversarial persuasion and introduce an adversarial reinforcement learning framework that trains persuader agents to change a target model's answer in a single interaction. First, we show that optimizing persuasion strategies through trial and error exposes vulnerabilities that static prompting misses: RL-trained persuaders raise persuasion success from approximately 24% to over 93% against the training-time persuadee. Second, we find that these learned strategies transfer to unseen models, achieving 83% attack success on Qwen-14B, 79% on Llama-3.1-8B, and 25% on GPT-4o-mini. Third, we demonstrate that a curriculum that bootstraps on more persuadable open-weight models before targeting harder models further increases GPT-4o-mini attack success from 25% to 38%. Moreover, our results reveal that optimized persuaders increasingly rely on credibility-based tactics, including fabricated citations and false authoritative evidence. Together, these findings expose a critical weakness in current LLM agents: even when they initially reason correctly, they can be steered toward false conclusions by optimized natural language influence. This positions persuasion robustness as a necessary safety criterion for multi-agent and human-AI decision-making systems.

Large language models (LLMs) can generate apparently highly persuasive text, but does sounding persuasive mean arguing well? We introduce \textsc{Persuasio}, a multi-agent dialogue platform grounded in a formal argumentation-based theory of persuasion dialogues that adjudicates logical winners during free-text debates. Using this system, we generated 192 debates on a UK political topic between humans and LLMs, and evaluated 22 interlocutors through both automated adjudication and 9,702 crowdsourced pairwise judgements across 1{,}386 annotation instances. We observed a consistent decoupling between subjective and formal persuasiveness: LLMs dominated the subjective ranking yet performed substantially worse under argumentation-theoretic adjudication, where humans remained competitive. Multi-agent and retrieval-augmented variants further widened this divergence. These findings reveal a systematic gap between rhetorical fluency and formal argumentative strength in LLM-based persuasive dialogues.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly serve as primary knowledge retrieval interfaces, their robustness against \textit{persuasion attacks}---attempts to inject misinformation or enforce counterfactuals---has become a critical safety concern. Existing red-teaming frameworks typically evaluate models in multi-turn dialogues where the target model retains full conversation history. We identify a critical flaw in this setting termed \textbf{Refusal Inertia''}: a model's initial refusal often propagates through subsequent turns largely to maintain contextual consistency, thereby masking its true vulnerability to sophisticated, isolated persuasion attempts. To rigorously evaluate the cold-start'' defense capabilities of SOTA models, we introduce the \textbf{SAST-IR} (Stateful Attacker, Stateless Target - Iterative Refinement) framework. By enforcing a memory wipe on the target while retaining the attacker's history, we simulate a worst-case adversarial setting using \textbf{multi-turn} (stateless) iterations. Leveraging \textbf{CP-Agent} (Cognitive Persuasion Agent), an enhanced diagnosis-guided agent, our experiments on the custom \textsc{CounterFact-Strict} dataset ($N=50$) yield alarming results: simple, diverse attack strategies achieved a staggering \textbf{96%} success rate, exposing severe brittleness in memory-less defense. Furthermore, we reveal a \textbf{``Complexity Paradox''}: while complex, iteratively refined attacks are effective, they often trigger defensive compliance, whereas simple strategies achieve a higher rate of genuine persuasion (\textbf{84.7%}). Our code and dataset are available at GitHub, https://github.com/cza1006/llm-persuasion-defense.