The study investigates how large language models encode rhetorical questions by applying linear probes to two social‑media datasets. It finds that rhetorical signals appear early in the model’s representations, are most stable in last‑token embeddings, and can be distinguished from information‑seeking questions with AUROC 0.7–0.8 even across datasets. However, probes trained on different datasets rank target instances differently, revealing that multiple, distinct linear directions capture various rhetorical cues rather than a single shared representation.
By Louie Hong Yao, Vishesh Anand, Yuan Zhuang, Tianyu Jiang
arXiv:2606. 08076v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) can generate high-quality arguments, yet their ability to engage in nuanced and persuasive communicative actions remains largely unexplored.
By Esra D\"onmez, Agnieszka Falenska
arXiv:2606. 08076v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) can generate high-quality arguments, yet their ability to engage in nuanced and persuasive communicative actions remains largely unexplored.
By Esra D\"onmez, Agnieszka Falenska
The paper compares two common ways of evaluating large language models (LLMs): prompting them to answer questions directly and scoring candidate answers using likelihood-based metrics. The authors introduce a new protocol that ranks declarative statements derived from question–answer pairs, and test it across 95 decoder-only models (0.1B–104B parameters) on 10 multiple-choice QA datasets. They find that while prompted answering accuracy improves sharply with model scale and instruction tuning, statement‑likelihood ranking accuracy stays relatively stable, indicating that the two evaluation methods probe different aspects of model behavior.
By Alessandro Bondielli, Lucia Passaro, Davide Bacciu, Alessandro Lenci
arXiv:2602. 23971v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Sycophancy, the tendency of large language models to favour user-affirming responses over critical engagement, has been identified as an alignment failure, particularly in high-stakes advisory and social contexts.
By Magda Dubois, Cozmin Ududec, Christopher Summerfield, Lennart Luettgau
The paper introduces “Persuasio”, a multi‑agent dialogue platform that uses a formal argumentation theory to adjudicate winners in free‑text debates. Using this system, the authors generated 192 debates on a UK political topic involving humans and large language models (LLMs), and evaluated 22 interlocutors through automated adjudication and 9,702 crowdsourced pairwise judgments across 1,386 annotation instances. The results show a consistent decoupling between subjective persuasiveness—where LLMs dominate—and formal argumentative strength—where humans remain competitive, with multi‑agent and retrieval‑augmented variants widening this gap.
By Jordan Robinson, Angus R. Williams, Katie Atkinson, Anthony G. Cohn