GRASP: Deterministic argument ranking in interaction graphs

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.

LLM-as-judge evaluation is widely used in benchmarking pipelines, where model outputs are compared and ranked using automated evaluators. These pipelines typically assume that judgments are stable properties of fixed inputs. We show that this assumption does not hold under interaction. We study post-decision manipulability: the extent to which an evaluation outcome can be altered through subsequent conversation with the judge after an initial decision has been made. Across controlled experiments on MT-Bench and AlpacaEval, we find that LLM judges are highly stable under repeated and neutral reevaluation, yet become substantially reversible under targeted post-decision challenge. An anti-baseline challenge protocol shows that stable judgments can be overturned through motivated interaction, while a counterbalanced target-validation protocol separates this reversibility from net target-directed steering. These reversals have practical consequences: they can degrade agreement with human preferences, shift benchmark rankings, and produce harmful evaluation changes despite high self-reported confidence. Authority framing is especially destabilizing, and revised judgments are often accompanied by low-overlap justifications, suggesting post hoc rationalization rather than reliable error correction. We introduce the Evaluation Robustness Score (ERS) to quantify interactional robustness by combining reversal susceptibility with counterbalanced directional effects. Our findings identify post-decision interaction as a distinct failure mode for LLM-as-judge evaluation and motivate evaluation protocols that measure not only static agreement, but robustness under challenge.

LLM judges now score most open-ended NLP output, and their mutual agreement is routinely read as evidence that the scores can be trusted. That reading is unsafe: judges may agree because they capture quality, or because they share the same blind spots, and agreement statistics alone cannot tell these apart. We develop a geometric test that can. Treating each judge's scores as a vector, we measure spread, effective rank, the angle to human scores, and the judge-judge, judge-human, and human-human agreement triple for 42 judges on two community-built Indic benchmarks covering four domains and eight languages. Every comparison is reference-matched: a judge and a held-out rater are scored against the same two-rater mean, since an averaged reference otherwise flatters judges by several degrees. On subjective rubrics, judges agree with one another as much as humans do yet reach only 58-66% of human agreement and often concentrate on an axis humans do not weight. On the one rubric with a verifiable answer, most of that gap closes. Ensembles converge on the judges' shared axis rather than the human one, and training widens scores without rotating them. Inter-judge agreement is evidence of human alignment only after this check passes.