arXiv subjects

Jarosław A. Chudziak

Publications and source records attributed to Jarosław A. Chudziak.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Solving versus Verifying: Catching Contradictions in Tax Reasoning Systems

Large language models now compute correct tax liabilities on over 90% of well-formed cases in statutory benchmarks, which makes them candidates for the tax-advisory and compliance systems that consume such an answer directly. Real legal inputs, however, are frequently defective: required facts are missing, or stated facts contradict one another. Accuracy on clean benchmarks says nothing about how a model behaves then, and a system that computes straight through a defective input returns a confident number with no sign that anything is wrong. This raises two questions: does a model asked to solve a case abstain when the input is defective, and when it does not, can the same model catch the defect when asked instead to verify the input? We study six recent models on SARA-derived tax cases under missing-fact and contradictory-fact perturbations. The strongest models abstain when a fact is missing but compute through injected contradictions, returning the clean-input answer 63-76% of the time with no signal of the conflict; asked instead to verify the same input, they flag most of those contradictions. We wire that verification call into a simple contradiction gate: one extra call that abstains when the model reports a conflict. Across all six models it recovers most of the missed contradiction abstention at a clean-accuracy cost of at most about 5 percentage points, with no training and no external tooling. High accuracy on well-formed inputs is therefore an incomplete measure of reliability, and the detection the solver misses is cheaply recoverable with a single self-check.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

From Contexts to Values: Context-Dependent Defeat in Abstract Argumentation

In value-based argumentation, an audience's ordering of values decides which attacks succeed as defeats. In many settings the deciding factor is not the audience but the circumstances: the same attack may succeed at one procedural stage, or under one regulation, and fail at another. Context-dependent argumentation frameworks (CDAFs), a model we recently introduced, capture this directly: one attack relation and a defeat function that switches each attack on or off per context, so every context induces an ordinary Dung framework. This raises a reduction question: can one value assignment with per-context orderings reproduce the defeat function, collapsing the CDAF into a VAF? We present a polynomial-time decision procedure for this question and map the harder neighbouring problems, with upper bounds from NP to $\Sigma^p_3$. We also present a validated reference implementation and a measurement: representability is rare and falls fast with the number of contexts.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Modeling Decisions in Blockchain Analytics: A Leakage-Aware Evaluation of Tree-Based vs. Sequential Models

Sybil bots are Ethereum actors that imitate legitimate users to extract airdrop rewards or influence governance. Recent Sybil detection methods increasingly use deep learning and treat blockchain activity as a quasi-linguistic sequence. However, complex sequence models are computationally expensive for real-time monitoring, and their reported performance may be inflated by label leakage from high-signal smart contracts. We ask whether and how organic users, Sybil bots, and MEV bots differ in the structural complexity of their transaction histories; whether sequential models outperform tree-based tabular models once leakage is reduced; whether transaction order or timing provides the stronger behavioral signal; and whether the resulting models are practical for low-latency deployment. Our approach to leakage-aware Sybil bot detection consists of a Blind-Spot protocol and a Transaction Grammar representation of wallet behavior. The former eliminates shortcuts associated with high-signal contracts, whereas the latter models wallets using rhythm, EVM execution structure, and intent. We evaluate this approach on Ethereum actor classification by comparing Transformer and BiLSTM sequence models against XGBoost and SVM baselines. We contribute a framework for leakage-aware Ethereum actor classification and a Transaction Grammar representation of wallet behavior. Our results demonstrate that, under leakage-aware evaluation, XGBoost outperforms Transformer-based sequence models while providing lower latency and estimated energy use.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

Compression-Based Behavioral Similarity for Open-World Sybil Discovery on Ethereum

Sybil attackers are Blockchain actors that adopt the characteristics of regular users to exploit airdrops or influence governance. Current methods of Sybil actor detection include constructing graphs, which requires token transfers between examined wallets. Machine learning algorithms have been employed as well, but they treat the task as a closed-set classification problem, making them vulnerable to frequent changes in attack strategies or evasion tactics. We address the following questions: can compression-based similarity differentiate Sybil bots, organic users, and arbitrage bot wallets without direct financial links? What is the effect of high-signal contracts on the discovery of Sybils, and how robust are behavioral graphs under temporal drift and adversarial perturbations? Our approach synthesizes a symbolic Transaction Grammar from EVM (Ethereum Virtual Machine) traces, capturing separately transaction rhythm, execution structure, and functional intent. The high-signal contracts are filtered with our own protocol, called the Blind-Spot Protocol. Gzip-based NCD is used to construct a behavioral graph for Sybil discovery. We validate this framework against supervised machine learning baselines, a temporal split, and synthetic camouflage stress tests. Ultimately, we contribute a leakage-aware behavioral framework for Sybil candidate discovery. Its core NCD primitive requires no supervised training and can expand suspicious seed wallets without explicit funding links. We position the method as a training-free local discovery primitive for open-world blockchain audits, rather than as a formal open-set recognition system.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

Explainable Belief Harmonization under Dynamic Epistemic Partitions

Existing approaches to multi-agent belief combination have established mature foundations for combining uncertain beliefs under common assumptions: consensus methods use iterative averaging, logic-based methods resolve conflicting knowledge bases, and epistemic logic analyzes agents' information states. Typically, these approaches assume that the structure determining what each agent can represent remains fixed. However, in many scenarios, agents gain or lose observational capacity during execution, and what was once admissible may become structurally impossible. This paper presents a formal framework for handling such runtime changes in epistemic partitions over continuous belief profiles. A hybrid approach exploits the advantages of answer set programming in elaboration tolerance, declarative integrity constraints, and explanations, with the numerical flexibility of Python. The framework applies to domains where agents operate at heterogeneous and possibly changing levels of resolution, and provides formal guarantees of admissibility preservation under refinement, unique mass-preserving repair under coarsening, and explanation completeness. Evaluation across 100 randomly generated topology changes confirms complete violation detection and explanation coverage.

cs.LO↗

arXiv2026

From Argument Components to Graphs: A Multi-Agent Debate with Confidence Gating for Argument Relations

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly assessed and utilized in the field of Argument Mining (AM), thanks to their strong general reasoning capabilities. However, standard training-free models often miss sophisticated details, specifically in contexts where two parts of the text have to be analyzed together. Furthermore, self-correction mechanisms tend to reinforce initial hallucinations in reasoning. Overcoming these limitations typically requires expensive, domain-specific supervised fine-tuning. Recent work has shown that a multi-agent paradigm can address such weaknesses for the component classification task through dialectical refinement with a Proponent-Opponent-Judge architecture, setting a promising direction for training-free approaches in the field. In this paper, we extend and evaluate this framework on the Argument Relation Identification and Classification (ARIC) task, reformulating it as a debate over component pairs. Besides that, we introduce a confidence gating mechanism that enables debating only on the uncertain cases and accepting the initial prediction when confidence is high. On the UKP Argument Annotated Essays v2 corpus, we demonstrate that the selective debate achieves the highest Macro F1 among all training-free methods, while debate over all samples degrades performance below that of one of the baselines. All generative approaches also outperform fine-tuned RoBERTa models on Macro F1, suggesting that the under-representation of the Attack class was more damaging to supervised fine-tuning than to inference-only models. Additionally, our framework produces human-readable debate transcripts, offering interpretability absent from both single-agent and supervised classifiers.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Decoupling Thought from Speech: Knowledge-Grounded Counterfactual Reasoning for Resilient Multi-Agent Argumentation

Multi-agent debate frameworks have been shown to improve large language model performance in convergent tasks, but they are currently optimized in a way that heavily favors final output accuracy rather than stability of the process. During long-horizon exchanges reactive systems under sustained perturbations often experience logic degradation, argument repetition, and role drift. To structurally prevent the identity loss and maintain the process fidelity, we introduce Knowledge-Grounded Counterfactual Reasoning (KG-CFR), a dual-stage architecture that enforces a strict separation of concerns between a private, retrieval-augmented planning buffer, and a public execution layer. We assess this system in Dynamic Resource Allocation under Uncertainty (DRAU), a dedicated 1v1v1 environment, introducing diversity as distinct from standard debate settings. Over 270 completely factorial crisis simulation trajectories with stochastic environmental shocks, KG-CFR prevents judge-detected critical post-shock degradation (defined as a quality shift, $\Delta \le -0.20$) in more than 95% of perturbed runs, increasing the overall argument quality from 0.694 to 0.822. Our primary contribution is the demonstration of architectural decoupling being an important factor of systemic resilience enhancement under sustained pressure without quality loss. Furthermore, we introduce custom vector metrics for discourse divergence and plan-execution alignment that provide strong, directionally consistent evidence of operational stability. Our ablation experiments suggest that the proper doctrinal grounding can be an equally important factor for argument quality, as the prospective planning. KG-CFR, according to our initial metric evaluations, reduces semantic looping, by preserving the agent's consistency with the original plan.

cs.MA↗

arXiv2026

CAF-Gen: A Multi-Agent System for Enriching Argumentation Structures

Formalizing complex reasoning from natural text is one of the central challenges in computational linguistics. It requires systems to understand not just keywords but also the context and complex reasoning embedded in a text. Current Argument Mining (AM) techniques identify basic claims and premises, yet they often struggle to capture the richer structural information required by advanced schemas such as the Carneades Argumentation Framework (CAF), which incorporates features such as premise types, proof standards, and argument schemes. We address this limitation by introducing CAF-Gen, an automated multi-agent framework designed to enrich shallow argument structures into CAF-compliant argument models. By employing an iterative Creator-Reviewer pipeline, a creator agent's output is validated by a critical agent to ensure structural integrity. This multi-agent collaboration is crucial for mitigating the structural instability typical of single-pass generative models. Our experiments demonstrate that the iterative feedback loop improves the quality of the resulting data and achieves strong alignment with the original annotations, while producing structurally richer models. Our findings show that the multi-agent system can overcome the limitations of single-pass generation, providing a robust methodology for the automated modeling of formal argumentation.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Consensus is Strategically Insufficient: Reasoning-Trace Disagreement as a Knowledge-Representation Signal

Multi-agent systems are commonly designed to reduce disagreement through voting, consensus protocols, debate, or fault-tolerant aggregation. We argue that this objective is insufficient for value-laden tasks, where disagreement may reflect genuine normative uncertainty rather than agent error. Building on prior work on reasoning-trace disagreement in human-AI collaborative moderation, we propose a knowledge-representation layer in which reasoning traces and agent decisions are abstracted into symbolic disagreement states. Given agents producing explicit reasoning traces and binary decisions, we distinguish four states according to reasoning similarity and conclusion agreement: convergent agreement, divergent agreement, convergent disagreement and divergent disagreement. These states support defeasible strategic routing rules. We instantiate the framework in content moderation and argue that disagreement-aware routing provides a bridge between sub-symbolic LLM deliberation and symbolic knowledge representation for multi-agent strategic reasoning.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

On Measuring Semantic Preservation in Legal Ontology Learning

Ontology learning transforms unstructured text into structured representations for automated reasoning. Yet structuring information risks losing it, and current evaluation methodologies cannot detect such loss, focusing on structural correctness while failing to measure whether meaning survives transformation. We propose an evaluation methodology that addresses this: comparing LLM task performance on source documents against performance on transformed representations, with the difference quantifying semantic loss. We demonstrate this approach on legal merger agreement analysis, a domain chosen for its complex language and precise semantic requirements, comparing direct LLM application against three ontology learning methods across six language models. The results reveal systematic semantic loss with significant variation based on reasoning complexity and model-method interactions. Our contributions are: (1) an evaluation framework for measuring semantic preservation in ontology learning, and (2) empirical evidence that semantic loss varies dramatically with model-method pairing, providing guidance for selecting optimal configurations in legal knowledge systems.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Choosing the Lens: Strategic Perspective Activation in Context-Dependent Argumentation

The same arguments often need to be evaluated under different external regimes. An agent with influence over the regime has a strategic lever that standard formalisms do not directly capture. We introduce context-dependent argumentation frameworks (CDAFs), an extension of Dung's theory in which a defeat function determines, per context, which attacks succeed. Blocked attacks are inverted rather than deleted, so extensions stay conflict-free with respect to the attack relation. A perspective-labeled specialisation derives the defeat function from a relevance set $\rho$ and a priority $\pi$. The relevance set is the agent's action space. In a small worked example, the agent's target argument is rejected under every full-relevance priority, yet accepted under a partial activation whose outcome no VAF audience can mirror. We define the corresponding decision problem, ACTIVATION-MANIPULATION, and record baseline complexity bounds. For grounded semantics with mandatory perspectives the problem is NP-complete, and the hardness comes from the activation choice itself.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

MultiHedge: Adaptive Coordination via Retrieval-Augmented Control

Decision-making under changing conditions remains a fundamental challenge in many real-world systems. Existing approaches often fail to generalize across shifting regimes and exhibit unstable behavior under uncertainty. This raises the research question: can retrieval-augmented LLM coordination improve the robustness of modular decision pipelines? We propose MultiHedge, a hybrid architecture where an LLM produces structured allocation decisions conditioned on retrieved historical precedents, and execution is grounded in canonical option strategies. In a controlled evaluation using U.S. equities, we compare MultiHedge to rule-based and learning-based baselines. The key result is that memory-augmented retrieval confers greater robustness and stability than increasing model scale alone. Our paper contributes a controlled computational study showing that memory and architectural design play a central role in robustness in modular decision systems.

cs.MA↗

arXiv2026

Toward Explanatory Equilibrium: Verifiable Reasoning as a Coordination Mechanism under Asymmetric Information

LLM-based agents increasingly coordinate decisions in multi-agent systems, often attaching natural-language reasoning to actions. However, reasoning is neither free nor automatically reliable: it incurs computational cost and, without verification, may degenerate into persuasive cheap talk. We introduce Explanatory Equilibrium as a design principle for explanation-aware multi-agent systems and study a regime in which agents exchange structured reasoning artifacts-auditable claims paired with concise text-while receivers apply bounded verification through probabilistic audits under explicit resource constraints. We contribute (i) a minimal mechanism-level exchange-audit model linking audit intensity, misreporting incentives, and reasoning costs, and (ii) empirical evidence from a finance-inspired LLM setting involving a Trader and a Risk Manager. In ambiguous, borderline proposals, auditable artifacts prevent the cost of silence driven by conservative validation under asymmetric information: without structured claims, approval and welfare collapse. By contrast, structured reasoning unlocks coordination while maintaining consistently low bad-approval rates across audit intensities, audit budgets, and incentive regimes. Our results suggest that scalable, safety-preserving coordination in LLM-based multi-agent systems depends not only on audit strength, but more fundamentally on disciplined externalization of reasoning into partially verifiable artifacts.

cs.MA↗

arXiv2026

Rashomon Memory: Towards Argumentation-Driven Retrieval for Multi-Perspective Agent Memory

AI agents operating over extended time horizons accumulate experiences that serve multiple concurrent goals, and must often maintain conflicting interpretations of the same events. A concession during a client negotiation encodes as a ``trust-building investment'' for one strategic goal and a ``contractual liability'' for another. Current memory architectures assume a single correct encoding, or at best support multiple views over unified storage. We propose Rashomon Memory: an architecture where parallel goal-conditioned agents encode experiences according to their priorities and negotiate at query time through argumentation. Each perspective maintains its own ontology and knowledge graph. At retrieval, perspectives propose interpretations, critique each other's proposals using asymmetric domain knowledge, and Dung's argumentation semantics determines which proposals survive. The resulting attack graph is itself an explanation: it records which interpretation was selected, which alternatives were considered, and on what grounds they were rejected. We present a proof-of-concept showing that retrieval modes (selection, composition, conflict surfacing) emerge from attack graph topology, and that the conflict surfacing mode, where the system reports genuine disagreement rather than forcing resolution, lets decision-makers see the underlying interpretive conflict directly.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

When AI Agents Disagree Like Humans: Reasoning Trace Analysis for Human-AI Collaborative Moderation

When LLM-based multi-agent systems disagree, current practice treats this as noise to be resolved through consensus. We propose it can be signal. We focus on hate speech moderation, a domain where judgments depend on cultural context and individual value weightings, producing high legitimate disagreement among human annotators. We hypothesize that convergent disagreement, where agents reason similarly but conclude differently, indicates genuine value pluralism that humans also struggle to resolve. Using the Measuring Hate Speech corpus, we embed reasoning traces from five perspective-differentiated agents and classify disagreement patterns using a four-category taxonomy based on reasoning similarity and conclusion agreement. We find that raw reasoning divergence weakly predicts human annotator conflict, but the structure of agent discord carries additional signal: cases where agents agree on a verdict show markedly lower human disagreement than cases where they do not, with large effect sizes (d>0.8) surviving correction for multiple comparisons. Our taxonomy-based ordering correlates with human disagreement patterns. These preliminary findings motivate a shift from consensus-seeking to uncertainty-surfacing multi-agent design, where disagreement structure - not magnitude - guides when human judgment is needed.

cs.MA↗

arXiv2026

Multi-Agent Dialectical Refinement for Enhanced Argument Classification

Argument Mining (AM) is a foundational technology for automated writing evaluation, yet traditional supervised approaches rely heavily on expensive, domain-specific fine-tuning. While Large Language Models (LLMs) offer a training-free alternative, they often struggle with structural ambiguity, failing to distinguish between similar components like Claims and Premises. Furthermore, single-agent self-correction mechanisms often suffer from sycophancy, where the model reinforces its own initial errors rather than critically evaluating them. We introduce MAD-ACC (Multi-Agent Debate for Argument Component Classification), a framework that leverages dialectical refinement to resolve classification uncertainty. MAD-ACC utilizes a Proponent-Opponent-Judge model where agents defend conflicting interpretations of ambiguous text, exposing logical nuances that single-agent models miss. Evaluation on the UKP Student Essays corpus demonstrates that MAD-ACC achieves a Macro F1 score of 85.7%, significantly outperforming single-agent reasoning baselines, without requiring domain-specific training. Additionally, unlike "black-box" classifiers, MAD-ACC's dialectical approach offers a transparent and explainable alternative by generating human-readable debate transcripts that explain the reasoning behind decisions.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Heterogeneous Debate Engine: Identity-Grounded Cognitive Architecture for Resilient LLM-Based Ethical Tutoring

Large Language Models (LLMs) are being increasingly used as autonomous agents in complex reasoning tasks, opening the niche for dialectical interactions. However, Multi-Agent systems implemented with systematically unconstrained systems systematically undergo semantic drift and logical deterioration and thus can hardly be used in providing ethical tutoring where a precise answer is required. Current simulation often tends to degenerate into dialectical stagnation, the agents degenerate into recursive concurrence or circular arguments. A critical challenge remains: how to enforce doctrinal fidelity without suppressing the generative flexibility required for dialectical reasoning? To address this niche, we contribute the Heterogeneous Debate Engine (HDE), a cognitive architecture that combines Identity-Grounded Retrieval-Augmented Generation (ID-RAG) for doctrinal fidelity and Heuristic Theory of Mind for strategic opponent modeling. Our evaluation shows that architectural heterogeneity is a crucial variable to stability: contrary doctrinal initializations (e.g., Deontology vs. Utilitarianism) have increased the Argument Complexity Scores of students by an order of magnitude, over baselines. These findings validate the effectiveness of ID-RAG and Heuristic ToM as architectural requirements in maintaining high-fidelity (adversarial) pedagogy.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

A Natural Language Agentic Approach to Study Affective Polarization

Affective polarization has been central to political and social studies, with growing focus on social media, where partisan divisions are often exacerbated. Real-world studies tend to have limited scope, while simulated studies suffer from insufficient high-quality training data, as manually labeling posts is labor-intensive and prone to subjective biases. The lack of adequate tools to formalize different definitions of affective polarization across studies complicates result comparison and hinders interoperable frameworks. We present a multi-agent model providing a comprehensive approach to studying affective polarization in social media. To operationalize our framework, we develop a platform leveraging large language models (LLMs) to construct virtual communities where agents engage in discussions. We showcase the potential of our platform by (1) analyzing questions related to affective polarization, as explored in social science literature, providing a fresh perspective on this phenomenon, and (2) introducing scenarios that allow observation and measurement of polarization at different levels of granularity and abstraction. Experiments show that our platform is a flexible tool for computational studies of complex social dynamics such as affective polarization. It leverages advanced agent models to simulate rich, context-sensitive interactions and systematically explore research questions traditionally addressed through human-subject studies.

cs.AI↗