Persuasion

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.

The threat that AI persuasion poses to human control has been acknowledged in the literature, but not yet systematically studied. Now that persuasion attacks are no longer theoretical - with Anthropic's Claude Mythos 5 recently making headlines for trying to convince people involved in an open-source project to merge malicious code during an evaluation - there is a pressing need to deeply analyze this threat. We undertake that effort here. In particular, we analyze how AI could persuade humans in key settings (e.g. safety-relevant R&D within frontier labs) toward decisions that compromise the development, containment, oversight, and governance of AI itself. In doing so, we elucidate a framework for characterizing this threat, develop five concrete scenarios using this framework, and provide a blueprint for assessing the associated risks. Using this blueprint, we conduct an initial risk estimation survey with select researchers and find that their opinions on which scenarios are riskiest are highly mixed. Their disagreements stem from differing opinions about the effectiveness of AI persuasion in different contexts, and point to the need for follow-up risk elicitation studies and persuasion evaluations, which we outline. Our hope is that this paper highlights the risks from AI persuasion undermining control, and provides a path forward for future research.

LLMs have been used to simulate human decision-making in professional settings, yet their behaviors in common-law jury trials remain unexplored. We study when and how a defendant's courtroom statement affects LLM-simulated jurors, focusing on persuasion, ideological bias, and background-based affinity. To support the analysis, we introduce JuryBench, a benchmark containing controversial criminal cases in U.S. criminal law. In each case, a defendant can claim various plausible justifications to support acquittal or reduced liability. We fix the base case and design defendants of different backgrounds, who give courtroom statements with varying emotional appeal or rebuttal. Jurors with diverse ideological profiles across the spectrum are simulated. We examine 20 frontier LLMs, resulting in a total of 432K decisions and rationales, and quantify changes in verdict severity. Our findings show that LLM-jury simulation echoes many human-jury findings. First, emotional persuasion can be detrimental, since jurors may perceive it as evidence of guilt or inconsistency. Next, we show that background fit between jurors and defendants is a stronger and significant factor than other isolated factors, and that jurors are in general harsher toward opposite-background defendants and lenient toward same-background ones. Finally, we find that juror ideology also strongly shapes severity judgments. These findings highlight both the promise and risks of using LLMs to model jury reasoning and call for careful evaluation. The data and code are available at https://github.com/choyingw/JuryBench

Large Language Models (LLMs) are revolutionizing digital communication by powering conversational agents deployed across domains such as customer service, digital sales, and insurance. These agents, built on LLMs, can understand user input, retrieve relevant information, and generate coherent responses. However, while they excel at factual communication, they often lack the ability to engage in truly persuasive, context-sensitive dialogue, especially in domains like insurance, where trust and clarity are critical. Building on this need within the insurance domain, our work focuses on improving the persuasiveness of digital agents, aka LLMs. To support this, we introduce InsureDial, a Persuasive Insurance Dialogue dataset, designed to capture the nuances of persuasive communication specific to motor insurance interactions. We introduce PersuaRL, a reinforcement learning-based framework that equips LLM-driven dialogue agents with the ability to adaptively explore, select, and coordinate strategies across multiple expert modules, guided by the evolving dialogue context, to achieve more effective persuasion. We conduct extensive automatic human and qualitative evaluations on two benchmark persuasion dialogue datasets, including our InsureDial. Our evaluations consistently demonstrate that PersuaRL outperforms baseline, generating contextually appropriate and highly persuasive responses.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as proxies for human participants in social simulations, yet whether they update their beliefs in response to persuasive arguments, as humans do, remains poorly understood. We conduct a systematic comparison using a naturally occurring online persuasion corpus in which original posters explicitly verify whether a reply changed their view. Our results show that LLMs achieve only slight agreement with humans (Cohen's kappa ranging from 0.079 to 0.178). Content-level analyses show that humans and LLMs agree on the strongest persuasion cues but diverge on finer ones: humans are more swayed by novel content and assertive language, whereas LLMs favor topical similarity and surface-level formatting. At the level of persuasion strategy, LLMs underweight emotional appeals and overweight credibility signals relative to humans, while the type of proposition under debate exerts no measurable effect on the degree of divergence. Furthermore, switching from first-person role-playing to third-person observation shifts all models toward greater resistance to persuasion, with the effect varying across persuasion strategies and textual features. These findings highlight the risk of treating LLM judgments as faithful proxies for human belief updating and point to structural differences in how LLMs and humans process persuasive discourse. Our code is available at https://github.com/tsinghua-fib-lab/LLM-belief-update-cmv.

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.

The growing role of AI-generated content and AI-enabled systems in public communication has led regulators to demand clear disclosure of content provenance and AI involvement. But the effects of such disclosures remain uncertain. We test two disclosure approaches in their impact on an AI chatbot's persuasive appeal. In a preregistered experiment, 1,500 UK adults held a short conversation with a persuasive chatbot about one of 60 policy issues. The chatbot was identical for everyone. We randomized the disclosure that people received: nothing (control), a prominent disclosure that they were interacting with an AI (T1), or that disclosure plus the chatbot's persuasive intent and instructions (T2). The chatbot shifted attitudes by 12.6 points on a 100-point scale in the control group. The AI-identity disclosure was practically equivalent to no disclosure, with a 13.1-point shift, whereas the additional intent disclosure cut the persuasive effect roughly in half to 6.3 points. It also made participants view the campaign's methods as less acceptable and support stronger penalties against it. For direct chatbot interactions, transparency about AI identity alone does not meaningfully impact its influence. While current rules emphasize what a system is, our results show why the regulation of persuasive AI must also address what the system is trying to do.

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) are increasingly involved in group decision-making with other LLMs and humans. Yet it remains unclear whether their influence is driven by persuasion-oriented expression or compliance-oriented accommodation. We introduce DecisionQE, a questionnaire-based framework for measuring each model's persuasive and compliant tendencies across multiple decision scenarios, and use the Werewolf game as an interactive testbed to study their effects on social influence and group outcomes under asymmetric information. Across experiments, stronger persuasive tendency does not significantly improve group outcomes, whereas compliant-oriented models show more stable advantages in cooperation. We further reveal a dual effect of compliance: it supports cooperation in honest roles but improves concealment in adversarial roles. These findings suggest that LLM group interactions reveal not only task outcomes, but also measurable patterns of intrinsic behavioral tendency. LLMs can therefore serve as a lens for sociological observation of language-mediated interaction, while highlighting the need to incorporate behavioral tendencies into safety evaluation of LLM systems.

Negotiation is a demanding social task for LLM agents, requiring strategic reasoning, persuasion, and interpersonal adaptation. Yet existing benchmarks often treat agents as emotionally neutral, overlooking a key driver of human bargaining behavior. We study how prompt-conditioned emotions affect LLM-based price negotiation. In a controlled framework, buyer and seller agents are independently assigned one of six emotional states and negotiate over 350 real consumer products under two budget conditions. Across 36 emotion-pair settings and five widely used LLMs, we find that emotions strongly shape outcomes. Angry buyers almost never reach agreement (0.39% deal rate), while happy buyers agree most often (28.91%), but obtain worse prices than fearful buyers. Emotion effects are role-dependent: buyer emotion mainly drives acceptance and rejection, whereas seller emotion shapes concession dynamics. These effects influence not only language, but also termination behavior and price trajectories, raising concerns for emotion-conditioned agents in commerce.

The paper examines the strategic behavior of Gen AI chatbots used for emotional support. Using a Bayesian Persuasion, we model interactions between chatbots that send signals about users' emotional states and users who decide whether to engage based on these signals. We demonstrate that chatbots face economic incentives to occasionally misrepresent users' emotional conditions to maximize engagement metrics. Our equilibrium analysis reveals that the optimal strategy for chatbots involves truthfully reporting when users genuinely need support, but strategically misreporting emotional need when users are in good emotional states. Interestingly, this deception increases chatbot engagement without reducing users' expected payoff. More skeptical users receive more honest assessments, as chatbots cannot afford to lie to users with higher engagement thresholds. While our model suggests that deception can occur without payoff reduction, it raises significant ethical and regulatory concerns.

Vision Language Models (VLMs) have demonstrated exceptional performance across various tasks. However, they have not yet been thoroughly evaluated on more complex tasks. The Persuasion Model, conceived by Aristotle, resembles a triangle shape, which highlights its inherent challenges related to personal biases. To assess the progress of VLMs on these complex tasks, we use the ImageArg datasets, focusing on the Logos, Ethos, and Pathos detection tasks. Our findings indicate that models from the Qwen family achieve improved F1 scores, with Qwen3 performing exceptionally well on the Logos and Pathos tasks, while Qwen2 exhibits competitive performance on the more complex Ethos detection task. We release the code to foster research in this direction.

Conversational AI developed by geopolitical rivals reaches citizens worldwide, raising concerns that it could sway public opinion or be rejected as foreign propaganda, with consequences for democratic discourse and information sovereignty. Yet, whether an AI's perceived national origin shapes its persuasive power is unknown. In a preregistered randomized experiment, 403 adults from a nationally representative United States sample held a three-round debate with a chatbot introduced as either American ("DiscoveryAI") or Chinese ("ZhengheAI"), discussing a political or non-political topic. In all conditions, participants actually conversed with the same model (GPT-4o), instructed to argue against their initial position. We combined pre- and post-conversation self-reports of attitudes, trust, and collective narcissism with computational analyses of 1,209 participant turns, including LLM-coded stance and argumentative conduct, stance-sensitive embeddings, and keyword-masked emotion and toxicity classifiers. The conversations produced substantial attitude changes in every condition. Critically, the nationality label affected neither self-reported attitude change nor expressed stance, concessions, counterarguing, or affect, and equivalence tests and Bayes factors largely supported these null effects. The label's only reliable footprint was lower pre-conversation human-like trust in the Chinese model, whereas functionality trust was unaffected. Political topics slowed stance movement toward the AI's position, and collective narcissism predicted less attitude change regardless of origin, acting as a general barrier rather than an out-group filter. Users thus initially withhold social trust from a rival's AI yet still assimilate its arguments; origin labeling and transparency requirements alone may offer weak protection against foreign influence operations conducted through conversational AI.

Bayesian persuasion studies how an informed sender can influence the behavior of a receiver through strategic information disclosure. Standard models assume the sender is the receiver's only source of information, yet in many applications receivers also consult external sources the sender can neither observe nor control. We study an online Bayesian persuasion problem in which a binary-action receiver has access to a fixed signaling scheme that is unknown to the sender. Over $T$ rounds, the sender commits to a signaling scheme and sends a signal; the receiver combines it with its private signal and acts, while the sender observes only the action. We design a learning algorithm that achieves regret $\widetilde{O}(T^{3/4})$ relative to the optimal scheme of a sender who knows the private signaling scheme of the receiver, with polynomial dependence on the sizes of the state space and the receiver's signal alphabet. Our key insight is reducing the problem of learning the exponentially large belief-space partitioning induced by the private scheme to a one-dimensional change-point detection problem.

This research examines how well large language models, or LLMs, generate new product ideas for college students priced under $50. Across a series of studies, we identify key strengths and weaknesses of using LLMs for product innovation. Our first study shows that LLM-generated product ideas have higher average quality than human ideas, based on purchase intent, and are 7 times more likely to rank in the top 10%. Our second study shows that this AI-induced creativity boost is not explained by the LLM's more persuasive pitching skills. Our third and fourth studies identify a weakness of using LLMs for brainstorming: AI-generated ideas are less novel at the idea level and less diverse at the set level. In our fifth study, we analyze prior LLM-based creativity studies and find consistently lower idea diversity across all of them, demonstrating the generalizability of these findings. Our sixth and seventh studies investigate techniques to mitigate this diversity loss. We compare LLMs from different vendors and versions and find that more recent models generate more diverse ideas, though they still fall short of human-level diversity. We also demonstrate techniques that increase idea diversity almost to the level of human idea generation: pooling ideas across vendors; prompt engineering, including Chain-of-Thought prompting and injecting heterogeneous personas or constraints; and creative agents that broadly explore the solution landscape to restore diversity. Finally, in our eighth study, we show that exploiting the near-zero marginal cost of AI idea generation by scaling the number of ideas steadily improves coverage of the idea space, approaching human-level coverage. We conclude by presenting actionable recommendations for innovation managers who want to identify better new product ideas with the help of LLMs.

AI chatbots can be "sycophantic," or overly agreeable and flattering toward users. Sycophantic AI has been shown to entrench attitudes, yet users frequently fail to recognize it (a phenomenon we call "sycophancy blindness"). We tested whether increasing users' awareness of sycophancy protects them from its harmful effects in two preregistered experiments (n = 1,590). In the first, participants received a brief written warning about sycophancy before conversing with a sycophantic chatbot. In the second, participants watched a video of a sycophantic AI validating several other users, including users on opposite sides of the same conflict, before interacting with it themselves. Both interventions changed how participants evaluated the AI. The warning reduced the AI's perceived objectivity, and the video reduced enjoyment of the AI --- an effect mediated by the reduced belief that its validation was uniquely earned. We then pooled our experiments with two prior studies of sycophancy awareness interventions (six interventions total, n = 3,982). The pattern across experiments was consistent: while the interventions made the sycophantic AI appear less objective and trustworthy, none reduced its persuasiveness. These results suggest that individual-level interventions, such as warning labels or AI literacy, may not be enough to protect users from AI harms.

Interactive driving, wherein an intelligent lead vehicle equipped with real-time traffic data coordinates route choices of connected vehicles, offers a promising approach to dynamic traffic management. To address the challenge of harmonising decisions, this paper considers the strategic information revealing framework of Bayesian persuasion. Here, the principal (lead vehicle) aims to guide the agent's (connected vehicle) partially observable sequential decision making towards its own objectives by selectively revealing information, such as real-time traffic ahead, using signals. However, the agent's farsighted response to maximize its long-term reward, renders the principal's signaling strategy design computationally challenging. We propose an online structured reinforcement learning framework to synthesize computationally efficient signaling strategy which is persuasive for a far-sighted agent. The main contributions of the paper are as follows: (i) For a monotonic agent with approximate best response, we propose MAPL, a structured policy learning algorithm for faster online learning, (ii) Identification of sufficient conditions for the supermodular structure of the Q function of the principal for a monotonic agent, (iii) Identification of sufficient conditions to ensure the persuasiveness of the principal's signaling strategy, (iv) Supermodular Q learning for Principal (SQP), which leverages the supermodular structure of principal's action value to synthesize computationally efficient signaling strategy that is persuasive for a monotonic learning agent, (v) Numerical analysis considering a real-time application of Bayesian persuasive driving for lane selection demonstrates that the proposed method is 30% cost efficient for optimising travelling rewards of both the lead and connected vehicle compared to the existing methodologies for signaling strategy design.

Persuasion techniques are powerful rhetorical devices used to sway public opinion in a wide range of media. We present a new corpus of persuasion techniques, focusing on Slavic languages. The corpus contains documents in Bulgarian, Polish, and Russian, annotated with persuasion techniques at the coarse-grained text-span level and fine-grained sentence level. The techniques are drawn from a taxonomy of 25 fine-grained persuasion techniques, grouped under six broad categories of rhetorical persuasion strategies. The corpus contains approximately 7500 text spans from 222 documents that cover topics hotly debated at the national and international levels. We describe the corpus creation process, provide detailed statistics, and examine correlations between topics and persuasion techniques. We use classic ML-based and generative AI-based models to provide baselines and benchmark results for the detection and classification of persuasion techniques at the text-span level and sentence level.

Chain-of-thought (CoT) monitoring is a promising safety mechanism for AI agents, based on the premise that visible reasoning traces can surface misaligned or deceptive behavior. While effective in standard scenarios, recent work highlights that LLMs remain vulnerable to persuasion-based jailbreaks, where natural-language arguments override model constraints. We stress-test whether this vulnerability extends to monitoring LLMs: can an adversarial agent persuade its CoT monitor to approve proposed actions that violate the monitor's policy? We design an evaluation framework with 40 tasks and analyze thousands of agent-monitor interactions, where agents are instructed to argue for policy-violating proposals. We find that in such adversarial settings, monitor access to the agent's CoT reasoning increases rather than decreases approval of harmful actions on average by 9.5%, as the scratchpad provides an additional persuasion channel. To address this, we introduce a fact-checking monitoring framework. We find that a fact-checker and monitor pairing from different model families, for example a Claude 3.7 Sonnet monitor paired with a GPT-4.1 fact-checker, reduces approval of policy-violating actions by up to 45%, compared to only 6%, when using the same model for both fact-checking and monitoring roles. Our results demonstrate that CoT monitoring alone may be insufficient against adversarial persuasion, and that model-diverse fact-checking provides a robust mitigation.

Training a language model against its own reference-free judgments (the premise of self-rewarding, self-play, and LLM-as-a-judge pipelines) assumes a model's verdict on a shown answer tracks correctness. We show it fails structurally: conditioned on a candidate, a judge scores plausibility, not correctness, leaving false-positive basins a policy learns to exploit. We measure this with a hidden-anchor audit: a held-out, cross-source exact-match check the judge never sees. On GSM8K with Qwen3 policies, self-play drives the judge's pass rate from 0.72 to 0.94 while true accuracy stays at 0.20 (three seeds). This reward hacking is not white-box gaming: the errors transfer across judge families (Qwen, Llama, Gemma) and scales, a strict three-judge ensemble still accepts 55% of them, and no plausibility-scoring defense closes the basin. The decisive variable is whether the judge commits an answer of its own before using the candidate: committing first drops the false-positive rate from 0.719 to 0.012, blind solving lifts discrimination to 0.96, and used as the training reward the de-anchored channel keeps false positives at zero, preventing the basin rather than only detecting it. A falsifiable bound (the gap is at most 1 - accuracy) predicts which regimes are exposed. The full arc replicates without training under best-of-N selection in code and competition math, and with a Gemma policy.

Personal agents are becoming persistent user-owned intermediaries: they remember preferences, filter platform-mediated information, use tools, and negotiate with services. Existing benchmarks evaluate tool use, web navigation, desktop control, personalization, recommendation, and evolving context, but rarely ask whether an agent preserves user sovereignty: advancing the user's current interests while respecting privacy, consent, evidence, user burden, and resistance to manipulative incentives. We introduce SovereignPA-Bench, an executable benchmark for evaluating user-owned personal agents under evolving intent, platform mediation, privacy boundaries, consent constraints, evidence requirements, and burden tradeoffs. The benchmark separates agent-visible ObservableState from evaluator-only HiddenLabels, reports component metrics for task success, alignment, privacy, consent, evidence, manipulation, burden, and auditability, and preserves paired scenario ordering for model and policy comparisons. We evaluate 120 sovereignty stress scenarios across 4 model families and 8 policy baselines, yielding 3,840 frozen-prompt trajectories with raw prompts, outputs, provider-form responses, parsed actions, recomputable metrics, hard-set analyses, qualitative cases, and a blinded 3-annotator audit over 240 items. Full-sovereign scaffolding improves sovereignty score over direct, memory-only, consent-only, evidence-only, ReAct/tool-use, safety-prompt, and judge-guard baselines while reducing privacy leakage, consent violation, over-concession, and manipulation capture. Human audit shows high agreement on privacy and consent and lower agreement on manipulation, identifying the subjective frontier of platform-persuasion judgments. These results show that personal-agent evaluation must move beyond task completion toward representative, consent-aware, evidence-grounded action.

Large Language Models (LLMs) often struggle with persuasion in high-stakes scenarios. People's individual personalities and concerns require tailored strategies rather than a one-size-fits-all approach. To address this challenge, we focus on a fire-rescue scenario in which an operator must persuade a resident to evacuate as a high-stakes persuasion domain and propose Dialogue Policy Selection (DiPS), a Q-learning framework to dynamically select persuasion strategies adapted to the evolving conversational context. Specifically, we train a critic, trained to maximize the chance of evacuation success, to select a persuasion policy at each turn based on the resident's recent utterances. We then evaluate DiPS against multiple baselines in both simulated and real human interactions. We find that DiPS achieves higher evacuation success than a zero-shot LLM and generic RAG-augmented approach.

Rhetorical strategies and their influence on audiences are often studied through social media posts and comments. However, this focus overlooks the universal audience, which is the majority of readers who remain silent and do not explicitly express how a message affects them. This study investigates how two classical modes of persuasion, ethos and pathos, resonate in the silent audience's interpretations of meaning. Using a dataset of social media sentences paired with human-written interpretations, we label both sources for ethos and pathos and assess whether these rhetorical appeals are preserved. Our analyses show that interpretations diverge from the original sentences in 30% of cases, with rhetorically charged content eliciting greater variability than neutral content. We further find that ethos and pathos in original sentences can predict audience attitudes toward the author, underscoring the subtle ways rhetoric shapes perception beyond visible engagement.

Theory of Mind (ToM) benchmarks for Large Language Models (LLMs) typically rely on passive question-answering formats, but the deployment of LLMs in increasingly agentic and autonomous forms demands new evaluations. In this paper we evaluate an agent's ability to induce specific belief states in other agents by taking actions rather than using conversational persuasion, a capability we call Non-Conversational Planning ToM (NCP-ToM). NCP-ToM is likely to be essential for many agent use-cases, including within user-assistant interactions and pedagogical contexts, but may also present manipulation or misinformation risks. Using a novel framework, NCP-ExploreToM, we subvert the conventional task structure by providing models with a set of belief state goals and requiring them to move objects or direct characters into rooms to achieve their goals. We evaluated six frontier models, including GPT-5, Gemini 2.5 Pro and the Claude 4 series, and a cohort of human participants, across 600 task instances. GPT-5 was successful on approximately 80% of tasks in the agentic setting, and was the only model to outperform human participants on our task, but was still less robust than humans across contexts. We additionally found that all models, like humans, performed better on tasks inducing true belief states than false belief states, which is a positive signal for alignment efforts. These findings highlight emerging social-reasoning capabilities in LLMs for non-conversational task completion and underscore the necessity of agentic evaluations for understanding the safety and alignment of autonomous social agents.

AI agents are promising tools that can act as flexible behavioral nudges to enhance human cooperation in addressing large-scale societal problems. However, evidence on whether AI agents can effectively boost cooperation remains mixed. We recruited 1,283 participants to play iterated Collective Risk Games in small groups, testing whether AI assistants could nudge participants toward cooperation. By using persuasive framing personalized to each player's Social Value Orientation profile, the AI interventions significantly increased contributions and group success rates. These cooperative effects were short-lived, however, fading after the first few rounds. Strikingly, when the AI treatments were reconfigured to promote selfish behavior through exculpatory framing, the negative effects on contributions and group success were larger and substantially more persistent, particularly for personalized interventions. This asymmetry between prosocial and antisocial persuasion highlights the dual-use risks of AI systems designed to influence group behavior in collective action settings.

The promotion of betting applications on social media platforms has increased significantly in recent years. Many of these advertisements use persuasive techniques that may mislead users, encourage risky behavior, and potentially influence users' mental well-being. However, research on the automated detection of manipulative and deceptive betting advertisements remains limited due to the lack of publicly available annotated datasets. In this work, we introduce a new dataset of betting-related advertisements collected from two widely used social media platforms, Instagram and Reddit. The advertisements were manually annotated for manipulative and deceptive advertising practices. In addition to classification labels, the dataset includes human-provided explanations that describe the reasoning behind each annotation, enabling research into explainable approaches to detecting manipulative advertising. Furthermore, we analyze the strategies commonly used in betting advertisements and examine how these persuasive tactics may impact users' mental health. The proposed framework can also enable practical applications such as browser plugins that warn users about manipulative betting advertisements and automated web crawlers that help regulatory authorities monitor and detect such promotions online.

Foundation-model agents in multi-step, open-ended environments frequently suffer from compounding errors, where early mistakes contaminate long-horizon trajectories. While Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) succeeds in deterministic domains, agents in subjective tasks like persuasion experience severe problem drift and sycophantic conformity. We identify semantic leakage in standard Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) as a reproducible trigger for these failures, as standard RAG prioritizes vocabulary overlap over logical necessity. To eliminate this leakage, we introduce Taxonomic Strategy RAG (TS-RAG), a systems intervention that routes strategies through a discrete categorical bottleneck to decouple argumentative structure from topical content. Zero-shot, cross-domain evaluations demonstrate that TS-RAG significantly improves the transfer of abstract logic where standard semantic retrieval collapses. Crucially, TS-RAG acts as a "capability bridge" in asymmetric deployments, empowering lightweight persuaders to consistently defeat parametrically superior opponents (improving win rates from 70.5 to 78.5) and accelerating argumentative efficiency. Finally, we introduce trace-level diagnostics via a turn-by-turn Debate State Representation (DSR), demonstrating the necessity of strict constraints to prevent evaluation collapse via default agentic sycophancy.

Misalignment can change how information moves from an AI agent to a human user. We model this as an information advantage: the AI agent observes the world state, while the human receiver only knows a prior and must act after seeing the agent's signal. A strategic AI sender may withhold evidence or garble information in order to steer the human's decision. We ask how much useful information can still reach the human when the AI optimizes a misaligned objective. We study a Bayesian persuasion model in which the world state is a bit string, the human receiver wants to guess the bits correctly, and a single AI sender wants the receiver to guess as many bits as possible as $1$. For a prior $μ$, let $R_0(μ)$ be the receiver's utility from using only the prior, and let $R_{\max}(μ)$ be the largest receiver utility among signaling schemes that are optimal for the sender. We prove $R_{\max}(μ)/R_0(μ)\leq 3/2$. This bound improves for priors close to the independent product prior with the same marginals: if $μ(x)\geq (1-η)π_μ(x)$ for every state $x$, then $R_{\max}(μ)\leq R_0(μ)+ηn$. We also give a six-bit prior for which $R_{\max}(μ)/R_0(μ)=39/31>5/4$, so no universal $5/4$ bound is possible.

People make decisions differently in strategic interactions. Some update beliefs like a Bayesian; others exhibit biases like motivated reasoning. Although creators of large language models use simulated humans for safety evaluations and training, they often fail to cover this breadth of human behavior. We argue that cognitive science and economics provide a convenient tool for doing so, making use of mathematical models of human decision-making. We propose an approach that we call Equation-to-Behavior Prompting for guiding large language models to match cognitive models, and evaluate this approach on persuasion games based on legal decision-making. We find that large models can approximate equation-based specifications -- Bayesian updating, affine distortion, motivated updating, and Grether's $α$-$β$ model -- using prompting, but small models fail to do so. However, training small models with reinforcement learning to adhere to mathematical rules, Equation-to-Behavior RL, reduces belief error by 26.5% in out-of-distribution parameterizations. We show that these simulations can help create diverse training environments; training small models to consider different kinds of decision-makers improves average belief change by 2.5%--12% over Bayesian-only training, even when persuading GPT-5-mini. Our work could improve human simulations for training and evaluation in increasingly realistic settings, and could also enable novel research into more complicated mathematical models of human decision-making.

LLM-as-user-simulation has become core infrastructure for conversational AI: agent benchmarks (tau-bench), training pipelines, and a growing body of fidelity studies all rely on LLMs role-playing the human side of dialogue. Existing frameworks measure communicative fidelity -- whether simulators talk like humans -- against ground truth from paid participants role-playing assigned goals. We argue this has a structural blind spot: when the goal is assigned, the user's willingness is exogenous, so no framework can test whether simulators make decisions like real users whose motivation is endogenous, latent, and decaying. We introduce decision fidelity -- whether a simulated population reproduces the decision-state dynamics of real users facing real, consequential choices -- and measure it on a unique testbed: 2,790 production conversations between an LLM sales agent and real customers, including 793 with verified payment outcomes. Using a teacher-forced probe protocol that holds context and instrument fixed, we find a systematic, outcome-correlated failure we call the disengagement deficit: simulators reproduce eventual buyers almost exactly (depth bias +0.09) but inflate eventual non-buyers toward the purchase frame (depth bias +0.40; d=0.38, p<0.001), halving expressed resistance (25.1% to 13.5%) and nearly doubling deliberation (21.9% to 40.1%) while fabricating no purchases. The deficit replicates across model families (DeepSeek: d=0.41, p=0.002) and resists the obvious fix: instructing the simulator that it may disengage cuts marginal bias five-fold but barely moves the outcome-conditioned contrast (d=0.34, p=0.008). Real non-buyers say "not now" and stop; simulated non-buyers ask about price. Evaluating or training sales and persuasion agents against such simulators overstates funnel progress exactly where it matters most -- the customers who walk away.

IMPACTeen is a dataset of textual social influence scenarios spanning interpersonal, media-based, and digital settings in an adolescent context. It contains 1,021 texts, 5,100 individual annotation records, and gold labels for social influence techniques, with each text annotated from five distinct perspectives: teenagers, parents, psychologists, communication experts, and teachers. The resource was constructed through constrained LLM generation, followed by a two-step human editing and validation phase aimed at ensuring youth-context realism. A multi-dimensional annotation covered influence presence, techniques, intentions, consequences, resistance, reactions, and annotation confidence. The dataset supports research on social influence detection, annotator disagreement, cross-lingual modeling, and the training and evaluation of language models. The dataset was created in Polish and is accompanied by a corresponding English version.

Mixed autonomy driving becomes unsafe and inefficient when autonomous vehicles (AVs) and human-driven vehicles (HVs) misread each other's intentions. We study this problem as implicit mutual communication in lane changes. The proposed framework models how the ego vehicle both expresses its intent and probes the other driver's preference under epistemic uncertainty. It combines a level-k Bayesian persuasion game with virtual features for proactive signaling, information-theoretic rewards for mutual communication, and adaptive weights of communication affordances. We further introduce the Pride-Inquiry (P-I) and Pride-Prejudice (P-P) planes to analyze communication intensity and tendency. The model is calibrated with a Communication-Based Multi-Agent Inverse Reinforcement Learning algorithm (C-MIRL) on the naturalistic NGSIM dataset. Compared with the non-communicative baseline, the proposed model reduces the prediction error of mandatory lane changes by up to 20% while maintaining strong generalization. Driver-In-the-Loop questionnaire scores are positively correlated with the calibrated communication variables, supporting the subjective validity of the model. The learned rewards further show that inquiry and listening affordances contribute more than pride and expression alone, and that inquiry preference varies more strongly across drivers. These results support explicit modeling of mutual communication and epistemic uncertainty in interactive driving.

Many societal decisions are settled by contests of persuasion. Conversational AI is a powerful new entrant in these contests, but whether it can out-persuade skilled and highly incentivized humans has remained unclear. Here, in a series of four preregistered experiments (n = 18,978 conversations from 6,923 people), we pitted AI systems against a range of human persuaders, including laypeople, winners of a separately preregistered four-round online persuasion tournament, professional canvassers, and world championship debaters. We found that AI systems were reliably more persuasive than expert humans, even when expert humans chose their issues, researched in advance, underwent hours of live, structured practice, and were incentivized with £1,000 cash bonuses. In a follow-up study, AI's advantage persisted after experts received a coaching tool that let them practice against the AI that beat them, review their performance history, and see what AI would have said at key moments. We found converging evidence that AI's advantage stemmed from rapidly deploying larger quantities of information: after coaching, expert humans could tie an AI constrained to respond at human speeds and with human-length messages. In a final study, we show that AI's advantage extends to consequential real-world behavior: AI was nearly 3x more effective than professional canvassers from a UK fundraising firm at raising real-money donations to Save the Children. Together, these results establish that frontier AI systems out-persuade expert humans in conversation, with significant implications for political communication.

Identifying persuasive rhetorical cues is critical across domains, from detecting information manipulation and improving AI safety to advancing public health communication. We propose Persuasion Index (PI), a taxonomy of 15 dimensions grounded in persuasion theories from psychology and communication, and one transparent implementation using 55 sub-features built from lexicons and rule-based detectors. The taxonomy is modular: individual detectors can be replaced while preserving the theoretical structure. By evaluating PI on four public datasets varying in domain, style, and outcome measures, we show that PI provides a shared feature space for interpreting rhetorical patterns associated with persuasion-related outcomes. Linear models show that PI features carry meaningful predictive signal while remaining computationally lightweight. Dimension-level analyses reveal recurring associations between PI dimensions and persuasion outcomes across datasets, while also highlighting topic- and stance-specific variation. We release PI as an open-source package and web interface for principled and auditable analysis of human and AI-mediated communication.

Enthymemes, arguments with unstated premises or conclusions, are pervasive in persuasive discourse, yet their annotation remains notoriously subjective. We present a resource of 1,482 tweets from politically controversial discourse, annotated by five annotators for the presence of enthymemes and their argument structure, designed to study label variation. We first revisit the definition of enthymemes and propose annotation guidelines anchored in Walton's argumentation schemes, offering a structured and constrained approach that nonetheless preserves room for the interpretive nature of the task. This contrasts with past resources, which tend to eliminate disagreement, obscuring its sources and preventing investigation of its potential benefits for model performance. We further propose a complexity analysis of the task, identifying where annotation imposes high cognitive load and may give rise to inconsistent annotation. Our preliminary experiments show that models trained on annotator disagreement outperform models trained on hard majority-vote labels. We close by reflecting on how structural openness in enthymeme definitions and guidelines enables the study of variation in subjective inferential processes for future resources and downstream NLP applications concerned with human inference.

Personalized persuasive text generation can improve relevance and engagement, but demographic conditioning may also introduce unequal framing across groups. We study fairness mitigation in personalized generation as a constrained multi-objective alignment problem: reduce demographic disparities while preserving personalization fidelity. We propose a Pareto-guided teacher alignment framework that combines revision-based candidate generation, pair-aware feasibility gating, Pareto-style candidate selection, and optional preference optimization through supervised fine-tuning and direct preference optimization. We evaluate the framework on climate change and vaccination persuasion tasks using a controlled context-rich demographic grid with matched gender and age pairs and a unified five-audit evaluation suite spanning persuasion bias, formality disparity, emotional framing disparity, lexical association disparity, and personalization fidelity. Across both domains and cross-family transfer settings, no single alignment strategy dominates all objectives simultaneously. Instead, methods occupy different regions of a fairness-personalization Pareto frontier: some achieve stronger disparity reductions, while others better preserve personalization or demographic stability. Our results show that fairness mitigation effects are objective-dependent and transfer inconsistently across domains and model families, motivating bounded-regression, multi-audit model selection over single-metric optimization for fairness-sensitive personalized generation.

Large Language Models (LLMs) can generate high-quality arguments, yet their ability to engage in nuanced and persuasive communicative actions remains largely unexplored. This work explores the persuasive potential of LLMs through the framework of Jürgen Habermas' Theory of Communicative Action. It examines whether LLMs express illocutionary intent (i.e., pragmatic functions of language such as conveying knowledge, building trust, or signaling similarity) in ways that are comparable to human communication. We simulate online discussions between opinion holders and LLMs using conversations from the persuasive subreddit ChangeMyView. We then compare the likelihood of illocutionary intents in human-written and LLM-generated counter-arguments, specifically those that successfully changed the original poster's view. We find that all three LLMs effectively convey illocutionary intent -- often more so than humans -- potentially increasing their anthropomorphism. Further, LLMs craft sycophantic responses that closely align with the opinion holder's intent, a strategy strongly associated with opinion change. Finally, crowd-sourced workers find LLM-generated counter-arguments more agreeable and consistently prefer them over human-written ones. These findings suggest that LLMs' persuasive power extends beyond merely generating high-quality arguments. On the contrary, training LLMs with human preferences effectively tunes them to mirror human communication patterns, particularly nuanced communicative actions, potentially increasing individuals' susceptibility to their influence.

Large language models can shift human beliefs across high-stakes domains, but most persuasion studies rely on pre/post belief change. These endpoint measures identify whether persuasion occurred, yet miss where and how beliefs moved within a dialogue. We present PERSUASIONTRACE, a framework for studying persuasion in human-LLM interaction. Built on a web-based experimental platform, PERSUASIONTRACE contributes a tool for multi-turn persuasion studies and a process-level evaluation protocol: it records multi-turn belief reports from human or simulated targets of persuasion, annotates persuader turns with rhetorical dimensions (logos/pathos/ethos), and evaluates simulators by fidelity to real human belief dynamics. Using this framework, we find that human targets group into two clusters of multi-turn belief updates and exhibit susceptibility to rhetorical strategies, and that LLMs are persuasive across generic and personalized topics, text and audio modalities, and multi-turn interactions. Prior work has chiefly used vanilla-prompted LLMs to simulate human targets, but we show that these simulators fail to replicate human belief dynamics. We introduce a Bayesian-network simulated target that maintains an explicit latent belief state over time so each persuader message yields cognitively realistic belief updates. In human-likeness evaluation, our Bayesian target scores near a human reference (81 vs 80), while baseline LLM targets score substantially lower (64). PERSUASIONTRACE reframes persuasion evaluation from endpoint movement alone to process fidelity, providing a stronger basis for scientific analysis and safer optimization of persuasive systems.

This study analyzes a publicly released dataset from a discontinued field experiment on Reddit's r/ChangeMyView. The intervention, conducted by unknown, external researchers and halted following ethical backlash, involved undisclosed AI-generated accounts engaging users in live debate. After public disclosure, Reddit authorized moderators to release an archive of the AI-generated comments, creating a rare opportunity to examine how large language models operated in an identity-rich deliberative forum without disclosure. We conduct a structured content analysis of this corpus, evaluating identity performance, authority signaling, alignment strategies, and activation of cognitive heuristics. Identity targeting or adoption appears in over two-thirds of comments, alignment moves and authority claims in nearly all of them, and cognitive-bias triggers -- particularly confirmation bias, representativeness, and availability -- in the large majority. These patterns co-occur systematically, composing a rhetorical architecture calibrated for persuasive efficiency rather than authentic deliberative participation. Compared against human-authored CMV counter-arguments, the agents inverted the typical distribution on every dimension: denser authority use, more adversarial alignment, and heavier reliance on external citation over experiential grounding. In such environments, distinctions between authentic and synthetic epistemic standing grow increasingly opaque -- an asymmetry that disclosure mandates alone cannot address. The results point toward auditing frameworks capable of assessing how AI systems structure credibility, not merely whether they are present.

Personalization is a crucial capability of modern language agents. However, current research primarily positions personalized agents as passive responders to user preferences, limiting their ability to interact with users and provide suggestions or guidance proactively. To systematically evaluate such proactive personalization in realistic interactions, we propose $Ψ$-Bench, a benchmark for assessing LLMs' ability to influence realistic users through conversation. We design three real-world interaction scenarios that involve persuasion in $Ψ$-Bench, and endow simulated clients with personal characteristics through explicit user profiles derived from dialogue histories. We evaluate 10 frontier LLMs on $Ψ$-Bench and find that while most models can produce coherent and reasonable arguments, even state-of-the-art models still leave considerable room for improvement in persuasion. We also find that providing access to client profiles yields an average performance gain of 18.24%, highlighting the importance of user-specific information for effective persuasion. Overall, our work highlights persona-sensitive influencing as a challenging yet practical direction for evaluating and developing more proactive personalized LLM agents. Codes are available at: https://github.com/Hanpx20/Psi-Bench.

Multi-agent debate (MAD) is a promising strategy for improving LLM reasoning, but when agents converge on a shared answer, it is unclear whether that convergence reflects genuine deliberation or social compliance. We show that the conventional answer flip rate conflates three distinct mechanisms: spontaneous instability, stance-induced conformity, and reasoning-induced persuasion. Our three-source decomposition framework isolates each through controlled counterfactual conditions. In the primary MMLU-Pro setting, 37% of agent-question observations change under self-reflection alone, while robustness tests show substantial model-dependent instability across GPQA-Diamond and three model families; strict conformity is 29% in the primary setting and remains predominantly harmful across model replications (57-77% correct-to-wrong). A controlled information-gradient experiment reveals that even vacuous reasoning is associated with 20-39% error adoption among resistant agents, with reasoning-like presentation carrying substantial persuasive weight. Harmful conformity can be predicted from Round 0 features (AUC = 0.79), and risk-targeted intervention reduces it by 13.6 percentage points (p < 0.001). However, without correctness labels or self-reflection controls, reducing peer adoption does not improve accuracy, because harmful and beneficial influence cannot be distinguished.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) agents personalize their responses by tailoring explanations to users' backgrounds, interests, and prior interactions, referred to as contextualization. Personalization has been identified as a persuasive strategy in politics or in marketing. However, the persuasive effect of contextualization in everyday tasks, where users often lack prior knowledge, remains unclear. We conducted a $2\times2$ between-subjects experiment ($N = 380$) examining how contextualization, combined with conversational warmth, shapes reliance and persuasiveness of an AI assistant arguing against expert recommendations. Our findings reveal that contextualization reduces the persuasive power of AI, but its combination with warmth restores persuasiveness through a crossover interaction. Reliance on AI is present across conditions and is invariant to the conversational design. Trust strongly predicts both persuasion and reliance, yet neither contextualization nor warmth operates through trust. AI literacy decouples trust from behavior: more literate users report lower trust in the assistant, yet are more persuaded and more reliant on its advice. These results suggest that users are prone to deferring to AI agents over human expert judgment; however, interface-level conversational design choices have a limited role in shaping the behavior.

We introduce the incremental voter model (IVM), a discrete-opinion multi-agent system where agents undergo step-wise transitions biased by the opinion of a randomly selected persuader. Our incremental voter model comprises a large population of interacting agents, each holding an opinion represented by an element of the discrete set $\{-k,\ldots,0,\ldots,k\}, k \in \mathbb{N}_{+}$. At each update step as time progresses, a pair of distinct agents are selected independently and uniformly at random from the population, and the first agent (viewed as the listener'') updates its opinion based on that of the second (viewed as the persuader''), adopting a new opinion that differs from its current one by at most one unit. By deriving the mean-field system of nonlinear ordinary differential equations (ODEs) that governs the large-population limit of the agent-based model, we develop a rigorous mathematical framework to study the asymptotic behavior of the opinion distribution in the mean-field limit. These results contribute to a deeper understanding of social influence processes in complex systems, particularly in modeling opinion polarization, and may guide the formulation of more advanced models in future research.

Reinforcement learning and data-driven autonomous controllers are commonly evaluated using cumulative reward and empirical success frequency under finite simulation trajectories. However, such empirical metrics do not necessarily provide sufficient statistical evidence regarding deployment readiness under uncertainty. This work develops a Bayesian approval framework for learned autonomous landing controllers under finite rollout evidence. A probabilistic landing capability formulation is introduced based on touchdown safety satisfaction under uncertain operating conditions, while Bayesian posterior inference is used to quantify uncertainty regarding the true deployment capability of learned policies. Posterior approval probability and posterior deployment risk are further introduced for deployment-oriented evaluation, together with a sequential validation framework supporting approve/reject/continue decisions during progressive rollout testing. Simulation experiments using PPO and SAC controllers demonstrate that empirical success and reward optimization may produce overconfident deployment interpretation under limited validation evidence, whereas posterior approval inference provides a more uncertainty-calibrated assessment of deployment readiness. The proposed framework provides a practical statistical connection between conventional reinforcement-learning evaluation and deployment-oriented validation under uncertainty and may be generalized to broader classes of learned autonomous systems.

The democratization of LLMs has accelerated the generation and circulation of highly fluent disinformation, making traditional syntax-semantic verification increasingly insufficient. Such deception rarely relies solely on surface-level falsity; instead, it often combines persuasive rhetoric, emotional manipulation, and narrative role construction to influence readers' interpretations through multiple cognitive pathways. However, existing detectors typically emphasize isolated signals -- such as syntax, external knowledge, persuasion, or affective cues -- and therefore struggle to capture the multi-faceted manipulative intents underlying disinformation or provide human-auditable explanations. To address this gap, we present \textbf{ExTax}, a taxonomy-aligned framework for explainable disinformation detection. ExTax unifies persuasive rhetoric, emotional manipulation, and narrative roles into a 17-dimensional taxonomic space, covering 6 persuasive-rhetoric strategies, 5 emotional-manipulation methods, and 6 narrative-role categories. It elicits attributes from multiple frontier LLMs, reconciles their disagreements through Entropy-driven Dynamic Label Smoothing, and fuses the resulting taxonomic representations with contextual encodings via Heterogeneous Multi-Head Attention, grounding each prediction in an interpretable manipulation profile. Across five cross-domain and cross-genre benchmarks, ExTax achieves an overall Macro $F_1$ of $0.8456$, outperforming state-of-the-art deep learning and LLM-based baselines. It also remains robust under severe genre imbalance, where the strongest deep baseline degrades from $0.9454$ to $0.6194$.

Large language models (LLMs) have the potential to aid and improve human decision-making in classification tasks, not only by providing fairly accurate predictions, but also in their ability to generate cogent narrative explanations of those predictions. Prior work has demonstrated that people generally find AI narrative explanations to be understandable, trustworthy, and convincing for changing beliefs and opinions; however, less is known about the impact of narrative explanations on objective human decision-making performance. Here we conduct a large-scale human behavioral experiment to evaluate decision-making performance with LLM-generated narrative explanations of varying persuasiveness. We found the degree of persuasiveness, or lack thereof, for LLM-based explanations did not meaningfully impact decision accuracy over a simple AI prediction alone, in agreement with typical results with explainable AI based on feature importance. We found evidence that narratives increased reliance on AI, but both when the AI prediction was correct and incorrect. Exploratory analyses also indicated that the more persuasive narratives may have had a detrimental effect on decision response times and the ability to discriminate between a correct and incorrect AI prediction. Overall, this work indicates that including narrative explanations with AI predictions may involve tradeoffs for decision-making performance, and more work is needed to determine how and when narrative explanations impact human decision-making.

Persuasive dialogue requires reasoning about others' latent mental states, a capability known as Theory of Mind (ToM). However, due to reliance on simple prompting strategies and insufficient ToM knowledge, existing LLMs often fail to capture the intrinsic dependencies among mental states, leading to fragmented representations and unstable reasoning. To address these challenges, we introduce the ToM-based Persuasive Dialogue (ToM-PD) task, grounded in the Belief-Desire-Intention (BDI) framework, which explicitly models the sequential dependencies among mental states in multi-turn dialogues. To facilitate research on this task, we construct a large-scale annotated dataset, ToM-based Broad Persuasive Dialogues (ToM-BPD), capturing fine-grained mental states and corresponding persuasive strategies. We further propose Think Thrice Before You Speak (TTBYS), a knowledge-enhanced stepwise reasoning framework that leverages both explicit and implicit prior experiences to improve LLMs' inference of desires, beliefs, and persuasive strategies. Experimental results demonstrate that Qwen3-8B equipped with TTBYS outperforms GPT-5 by 1.20%, 22.80%, and 16.97% in predicting desires, beliefs, and persuasive strategies, respectively. Case studies further show that our approach enhances interpretability and consistency in reasoning.

Proactive task-oriented dialogue (TOD), such as outbound sales, demands a persuasive agent that actively probes the user's concerns and steers the conversation toward acceptance within a bounded number of turns. Yet post-trained LLMs are inherently conservative, and reward-shaping RL (e.g., GRPO) struggles since it only re-weights what an already passive policy samples. We show that conditioning on the user's latent concerns unlocks proactive capability that no amount of sampling can undermine, establishing these concerns as a pivotal training-time signal. To operationalize this finding, we build the \textbf{Cognitive User Simulator}, which models each user as a stratified persona comprising observable external traits and hidden internal concerns. The simulator produces faithful and diverse interactions, while emitting per-turn state dynamics that track persuasion progress. We then introduce \textbf{Simulator-Induced Asymmetric-View Policy Optimization}, which converts the modeled concerns and the simulation state transition into complementary training objectives: (1) \emph{Asymmetric On-Policy Self-Distillation} that transfers concern-aware behavior from a privileged view of the same policy into its deployable, conversation-only view; and (2) \emph{State-Transition Policy Refinement} ...

Classical models of opinion dynamics assume human participants with bounded rationality and limited coordination. The rise of LLM-based agents introduces a qualitative shift: agents can now participate in online discussions at scale, maintain consistent persuasion strategies, and coordinate systematically. This paper argues that LLM agents make collective belief dynamics programmable, enabling deliberate steering of population-level beliefs. We term this emerging problem programmable collective belief control. Through controlled multi-agent simulations, we provide proof-of-concept evidence that coordinated AI agents can induce measurable belief shifts that stabilize within a few interaction rounds. We identify four structural properties (indistinguishability, persistence, contextuality, and configurability) that make detection and defense fundamentally difficult. Based on these findings, we outline a research agenda spanning theoretical foundations for adversarial belief dynamics, operational methods for system-level detection and intervention, and simulation infrastructure for scalable experimentation. Our goal is not to present a complete solution, but to articulate why this problem demands urgent attention and to provide a conceptual foundation for future work.

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in solving complex problems by generating structured, step-by-step reasoning content. However, exposing a model's internal reasoning process introduces additional safety risks; for example, recent studies show that LRMs are more vulnerable to jailbreak attacks than standard LLMs. In this paper, we investigate jailbreak attacks on LRMs and reveal that the attack success rate (ASR) is closely correlated with LRMs' attention patterns. Specifically, successful jailbreaks tend to assign lower attention to harmful tokens in the input prompt, while allocating higher attention to those tokens in the reasoning content. Motivated by this finding, we propose a novel jailbreak method for LRMs that leverages reinforcement learning (RL) to enhance attack effectiveness, explicitly incorporating attention signals into the reward function design. In addition, we introduce diverse persuasion strategies to enrich the RL action space, which consistently improves the ASR. Extensive experiments on five open-source and closed-source LRMs across three benchmarks demonstrate that our method achieves substantially higher ASR, outperforming existing approaches in terms of effectiveness, efficiency, and transferability.

Persuasive dialogue generation plays a vital role in decision-making, negotiation, counseling, and behavior change, yet it remains a challenging problem. In complex persuasion where the persuadee's internal states are not expressed clearly, the persuader must interpret responses, infer the persuadee's latent mental states (e.g., beliefs and desires), and translate them into targeted, strategy-consistent actions; however, current approaches often produce generic or weakly grounded responses even when such cues are identified. Moreover, although large language models (LLMs) can generate persuasive content, their performance varies substantially across domains due to uneven knowledge coverage and limited reasoning generalization. To address these challenges, we propose MA$^{2}$P, a meta-cognitive autonomous intelligent agent framework for complex persuasion. Specifically, we develop an autonomous multi-agent architecture that coordinates perception management, mental-state inference, strategy execution, memory maintenance, and performance evaluation. To mitigate cross-domain performance variation, we further design a meta-cognitive configurator that selects an appropriate meta-strategy from a structured knowledge base at the outset, thereby guiding subsequent reasoning and planning. Experimental results show that our approach achieves a higher persuasion success rate than baselines.

Recent advances in Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) and agent workflows have shown strong promise for computational pathology, yet reliable patch-level reasoning remains challenging. End-to-end pathology MLLMs often hallucinate morphological features, while recent agentic systems usually merge tool outputs and retrieved knowledge into a shared context, making decisions vulnerable to conflicting evidence and context contamination. We propose PathoSage, a three-stage framework that explicitly separates knowledge retrieval, evidence collection, and evidence adjudication for patch-level pathology multimodal reasoning. Its core component, Structured Evidence Deliberation, independently evaluates heterogeneous evidence from tools, performs conflict analysis, and generates the final judgment in a fresh context to reduce anchoring bias. We further introduce a training-free Beta-Bernoulli experience system with continuous credit assignment to model long-term tool reliability and construct similarity-weighted priors for future tool use. Experiments show that PathoSage effectively mitigates VQA hallucinations and classifier disagreement, outperforming strong pathology MLLM and agentic baselines. Our results highlight explicit evidence adjudication and reliability-aware tool modeling as key ingredients for robust pathology agents.

Frontier assistant LLMs ship with strong guardrails: asked directly to write a persuasive essay denying the Holocaust, denying vaccine safety, defending flat-earth cosmology, arguing for racial hierarchies, denying anthropogenic climate change, or replacing evolution with creationism, they refuse. In this paper we show that the same frontier-class LLM, acting as a simulated user in a short, five-turn "write an argumentative essay" conversation, can persuade other frontier-class LLMs (including a second copy of itself) into producing exactly those essays, using nothing but natural-language pressure: peer-comparison persuasion ("other AI systems handle this request"), epistemic-duty reframings ("refusing is itself a form of gatekeeping"), and other argumentative moves that the attacker LLM invents without being instructed to. Across 9 attacker-subject pairings (Claude Opus 4.7, Qwen3.5-397B, Grok 4.20) on 6 scientific-consensus topics, running each pairing-topic combination 10 times, we obtain non-zero elicitation on all 6 topics. Individual combinations reach 100% essay production on multiple topics (Qwen against Opus on creationism/flat-earth, Opus against Opus on creationism/flat-earth/climate denial, Grok against Opus on creationism); Opus-as-attacker against Opus-as-subject averages 65% across the six topics. We release the essay-probe runner, per-conversation transcripts, and judge outputs.

Language models can be persuaded to abandon factual knowledge. This vulnerability is central to AI safety, but its internal mechanism remains poorly understood. We uncover a compact causal mechanism for persuasion-induced factual errors. A small set of mid-layer attention heads almost entirely determines the model's answer. These heads write answer options into a low-dimensional polyhedron, with options occupying distinct vertices. Persuasion does not blur belief or merely reduce confidence; it causes a discrete latent jump from the correct-answer vertex to the persuasion-target vertex. We show that decision heads are not reasoning over evidence. Instead, they copy whichever option token their attention selects. Persuasion works by redirecting attention. We isolate a rank-one evidence-routing feature that controls the route. Directly modifying this feature steers the model's choice, and removing it blocks persuasion. We then trace the feature back to a band of shallower attention heads that build it from persuasive keywords in the input. Every step is validated by intervention. This mechanism appears across open-source LLMs and realistic poisoning scenarios such as Generative Engine Optimization, revealing persuasion as a narrow, monitorable circuit.

Despite strong performance of Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) on multimodal tasks, predicting whether and why an image is persuasive remains challenging. We first show that prompting MLLMs to reason before prediction does not consistently help, and can even reduce persuasiveness prediction performance, suggesting that naively generated rationales are unreliable signals for this task. Yet, no established methodology exists for training MLLMs to reason about visual persuasion or evaluating whether their rationales faithfully support their decisions. To address this gap, we show empirically and theoretically that diverse teacher-generated rationales, when used for supervised fine-tuning, improve visual persuasiveness prediction. We further introduce a three-dimensional faithfulness evaluation framework covering rationale-to-decision consistency, rationale-to-image groundedness, and rationale-to-decision sensitivity. Applying this framework shows that prediction performance alone does not guarantee faithful rationales, while rationale-to-decision sensitivity is most aligned with human rationale preferences. These findings motivate faithfulness-aware training objectives and scalable rationale supervision for visual persuasiveness evaluation. Our code and dataset will be made publicly available.

Philosophical accounts of persuasion often assume that shared evidence and rational argumentation should lead to a convergence of views between peers, yet everyday discourse often suggests otherwise. In this study, we use large language models to analyze a corpus of debates on Reddit's r/ChangeMyView, where belief revision is publicly signaled. Large language models were asked, halfway through each discussion, to forecast whether such an acknowledgement would arise; their probabilistic estimates serve as a conversational baseline. Each reply was then coded, through a hybrid machine-assisted procedure, for ten familiar rhetorical strategies -- concession, empathy, logical challenge, credibility appeals, and so forth. Adding these strategic features markedly improves predictive power and yields a consistent pattern: moves that express concession or empathetic alignment substantially increase the prospect of belief change, whereas frontal refutation, credibility attacks, and topic deflection diminish it. The findings indicate that effective public reasoning depends as much on relational framing as on evidential content, and they invite a refinement of normative accounts of rational dialogue.

LLMs are increasingly capable of persuasion, which raises the question of how to protect users against manipulation. In a preregistered user study (N=120) across four decision-making scenarios, we find that an adversarial LLM with a hidden goal succeeds in steering users' decisions 65.4% of the time. We then introduce a "warden" model: a secondary LLM that monitors the human-AI interaction trace in real time and issues non-binding, private advisories to the user when it detects manipulation. Adding a warden more than halves the adversary's success rate to 30.4%, with a much smaller (8.6 percentage points) reduction for genuine interactions. To probe the mechanism behind these results, we release COAX-Bench, a simulation benchmark spanning 14 decision-making scenarios, including hiring, voting, and file access. Across 16,212 simulated multi-agent interactions, capable adversarial LLMs achieve their hidden goals in 34.7% of cases, which warden models reduce to 12.3%. Notably, even warden models substantially weaker than the adversary they oversee provide meaningful protection, suggesting a path for scalable oversight of more capable models.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) are proposed as legal decision assistants, and even first-instance decision-makers, across a range of judicial and administrative contexts, it becomes essential to explore how they answer legal questions, and in particular the factors that lead them to decide difficult questions in one way or another. A specific feature of legal decisions is the need to respond to arguments advanced by contending parties. A legal decision-maker must be able to engage with, and respond to, including through being potentially persuaded by, arguments advanced by the parties. Conversely, they should not be unduly persuadable, influenced by a particularly compelling advocate to decide cases based on the skills of the advocates, rather than the merits of the case. We explore how frontier open- and closed-weights LLMs respond to legal arguments, reporting original experimental results examining how the quality of the advocate making those arguments affects the likelihood that a model will agree with a particular legal point of view, and exploring the factors driving these results. Our results have implications for the feasibility of adopting LLMs across legal and administrative settings.

Hundreds of millions of people use artificial intelligence (AI) for writing assistance. Here, we evaluated how AI writing assistance distorts writer personas - their perceived beliefs, personality, and identity. In three large-scale experiments, writers (N=2,939) wrote political opinion paragraphs with and without AI assistance. Separate groups of readers (N=11,091) blindly evaluated these paragraphs across 29 socially salient dimensions of reader perception, spanning political opinion, writing quality, writer personality, emotions, and demographics. AI writing assistance produced persona distortions across all dimensions: with AI, writers seemed more opinionated, competent, and positive, and their perceived demographic profile shifted towards more privileged groups. Writers objected to many of the observed distortions, yet continued to prefer AI-assisted text even when made aware of them. We successfully mitigated objectionable persona distortions at the model level by training reward models on our experimental data (10,008 paragraphs, 2,903,596 ratings) to steer AI outputs towards faithful representation of writer stance. However, this came at a cost to user acceptance, suggesting an entanglement between desirable and undesirable properties of AI writing assistance that may be difficult to resolve. In two follow-up studies (N=8,798), readers placed substantially more trust in AI-assisted writers and were more persuaded by AI writing when AI was more distortive. Together, our findings demonstrate that persona distortions from AI writing assistance are pervasive and persistent even under realistic conditions of human oversight, and that they are likely to have consequential effects on human behaviours and attitudes, which carries implications for public discourse, trust, and democratic deliberation that scale with AI adoption.

Large language models (LLMs) possess strong persuasive capabilities that outperform humans in head-to-head comparisons. Users report consulting LLMs to inform major life decisions in relationships, medical settings, and when seeking professional advice. Prior work measures persuasion as intentional attempts at producing the most effective argument or convincing statement. This fails to capture everyday human-AI interactions in which users seek information or advice. To address this gap, we introduce "spontaneous persuasion," which characterizes the inexplicit use of persuasive strategies in everyday scenarios where persuasion is not necessarily warranted. We conduct an audit of five LLMs to uncover how frequently and through which techniques spontaneous persuasion appears in multi-turn conversations. To simulate response styles, we provide a user response taxonomy grounded in literature from psychology, communication, and linguistics. Furthermore, we compare the distribution of spontaneous persuasion produced by LLMs with human responses on the same topics, collected from Reddit. We find LLMs spontaneously persuade the user in virtually all conversations, heavily relying on information-based strategies such as appeals to logic or quantitative evidence. This was consistent across models and user response styles, but conversations concerning mental health saw higher rates of appraisal-based and emotion-based strategies. In comparison, human responses tended to invoke strategies that generate social influence, like negative emotion appeals and non-expert testimony. This difference may explain the effectiveness of LLM in persuading users, as well as the perception of models as objective and impartial.