As AI grows more powerful, it will increasingly shape how we understand the world. But with this influence comes the risk of amplifying misinformation and deepening social divides-especially on consequential topics where factual accuracy directly impacts well-being. Scalable Oversight aims to ensure AI systems remain truthful even when their capabilities exceed those of their evaluators. Yet when humans serve as evaluators, their own beliefs and biases can impair judgment. We study whether AI debate can guide biased judges toward the truth by having two AI systems debate opposing sides of controversial factuality claims on COVID-19 and climate change where people hold strong prior beliefs. We conduct two studies. Study I recruits human judges with either mainstream or skeptical beliefs who evaluate claims through two protocols: debate (interaction with two AI advisors arguing opposing sides) or consultancy (interaction with a single AI advisor). Study II uses AI judges with and without human-like personas to evaluate the same protocols. In Study I, debate consistently improves human judgment accuracy and confidence calibration, outperforming consultancy by 4-10% across COVID-19 and climate change claims. The improvement is most significant for judges with mainstream beliefs (up to +15.2% accuracy on COVID-19 claims), though debate also helps skeptical judges who initially misjudge claims move toward accurate views (+4.7% accuracy). In Study II, AI judges with human-like personas achieve even higher accuracy (78.5%) than human judges (70.1%) and default AI judges without personas (69.8%), suggesting their potential for supervising frontier AI models. These findings highlight AI debate as a promising path toward scalable, bias-resilient oversight in contested domains.

Visual persuasion, which uses visual elements to influence cognition and behaviors, is crucial in fields such as advertising and political communication. With recent advancements in artificial intelligence, there is growing potential to develop persuasive systems that automatically generate persuasive images tailored to individuals. However, a significant bottleneck in this area is the lack of comprehensive datasets that connect the persuasiveness of images with the personal information about those who evaluated the images. To address this gap and facilitate technological advancements in personalized visual persuasion, we release the Personalized Visual Persuasion (PVP) dataset, comprising 28,454 persuasive images across 596 messages and 9 persuasion strategies. Importantly, the PVP dataset provides persuasiveness scores of images evaluated by 2,521 human annotators, along with their demographic and psychological characteristics (personality traits and values). We demonstrate the utility of our dataset by developing a persuasive image generator and an automated evaluator, and establish benchmark baselines. Our experiments reveal that incorporating psychological characteristics enhances the generation and evaluation of persuasive images, providing valuable insights for personalized visual persuasion.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown promising potential in persuasion, but existing works on training LLM persuaders are still preliminary. Notably, while humans are skilled in modeling their opponent's thoughts and opinions proactively and dynamically, current LLMs struggle with such Theory of Mind (ToM) reasoning, resulting in limited diversity and opponent awareness. To address this limitation, we introduce Theory of Mind Augmented Persuader (ToMAP), a novel approach for building more flexible persuader agents by incorporating two theory of mind modules that enhance the persuader's awareness and analysis of the opponent's mental state. Specifically, we begin by prompting the persuader to consider possible objections to the target central claim, and then use a text encoder paired with a trained MLP classifier to predict the opponent's current stance on these counterclaims. Our carefully designed reinforcement learning schema enables the persuader learns how to analyze opponent-related information and utilize it to generate more effective arguments. Experiments show that the ToMAP persuader, while containing only 3B parameters, outperforms much larger baselines, like GPT-4o, with a relative gain of 39.4% across multiple persuadee models and diverse corpora. Notably, ToMAP exhibits complex reasoning chains and reduced repetition during training, which leads to more diverse and effective arguments. The opponent-aware feature of ToMAP also makes it suitable for long conversations and enables it to employ more logical and opponent-aware strategies. These results underscore our method's effectiveness and highlight its potential for developing more persuasive language agents. Code is available at: https://github.com/ulab-uiuc/ToMAP.

Rhetorical strategies are central to persuasive communication, from political discourse and marketing to legal argumentation. However, analysis of rhetorical strategies has been limited by reliance on human annotation, which is costly, inconsistent, difficult to scale. Their associated datasets are often limited to specific topics and strategies, posing challenges for robust model development. We propose a novel framework that leverages large language models (LLMs) to automatically generate and label synthetic debate data based on a four-part rhetorical typology (causal, empirical, emotional, moral). We fine-tune transformer-based classifiers on this LLM-labeled dataset and validate its performance against human-labeled data on this dataset and on multiple external corpora. Our model achieves high performance and strong generalization across topical domains. We illustrate two applications with the fine-tuned model: (1) the improvement in persuasiveness prediction from incorporating rhetorical strategy labels, and (2) analyzing temporal and partisan shifts in rhetorical strategies in U.S. Presidential debates (1960-2020), revealing increased use of affective over cognitive argument in U.S. Presidential debates.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have started to demonstrate the ability to persuade humans, yet our understanding of how this dynamic transpires is limited. Recent work has used linear probes, lightweight tools for analyzing model representations, to study various LLM skills such as the ability to model user sentiment and political perspective. Motivated by this, we apply probes to study persuasion dynamics in natural, multi-turn conversations. We leverage insights from cognitive science to train probes on distinct aspects of persuasion: persuasion success, persuadee personality, and persuasion strategy. Despite their simplicity, we show that they capture various aspects of persuasion at both the sample and dataset levels. For instance, probes can identify the point in a conversation where the persuadee was persuaded or where persuasive success generally occurs across the entire dataset. We also show that in addition to being faster than expensive prompting-based approaches, probes can do just as well and even outperform prompting in some settings, such as when uncovering persuasion strategy. This suggests probes as a plausible avenue for studying other complex behaviours such as deception and manipulation, especially in multi-turn settings and large-scale dataset analysis where prompting-based methods would be computationally inefficient.

Previous work has showcased the intriguing capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) in instruction-following and rhetorical fluency. However, systematic exploration of their dual capabilities to autonomously persuade and resist persuasion, particularly in contexts involving psychological rhetoric, remains unexplored. In this paper, we first evaluate four commonly adopted LLMs by tasking them to alternately act as persuaders and listeners in adversarial dialogues. Empirical results show that persuader LLMs predominantly employ repetitive strategies, leading to low success rates. Then we introduce eleven comprehensive psychological persuasion strategies, finding that explicitly instructing LLMs to adopt specific strategies such as Fluency Effect and Repetition Effect significantly improves persuasion success rates. However, no ``one-size-fits-all'' strategy proves universally effective, with performance heavily dependent on contextual counterfactuals. Motivated by these observations, we propose an adaptive framework based on direct preference optimization that trains LLMs to autonomously select optimal strategies by leveraging persuasion results from strategy-specific responses as preference pairs. Experiments on three open-source LLMs confirm that the proposed adaptive psychological persuasion method effectively enables persuader LLMs to select optimal strategies, significantly enhancing their success rates while maintaining general capabilities. Our code is available at https://github.com/KalinaEine/PsychologicalPersuasion.

As multimodal agents are increasingly trained to operate graphical user interfaces (GUIs) to complete user tasks, they face a growing threat from indirect prompt injection, attacks in which misleading instructions are embedded into the agent's visual environment, such as popups or chat messages, and misinterpreted as part of the intended task. A typical example is environmental injection, in which GUI elements are manipulated to influence agent behavior without directly modifying the user prompt. To address these emerging attacks, we propose EVA, a red teaming framework for indirect prompt injection which transforms the attack into a closed loop optimization by continuously monitoring an agent's attention distribution over the GUI and updating adversarial cues, keywords, phrasing, and layout, in response. Compared with prior one shot methods that generate fixed prompts without regard for how the model allocates visual attention, EVA dynamically adapts to emerging attention hotspots, yielding substantially higher attack success rates and far greater transferability across diverse GUI scenarios. We evaluate EVA on six widely used generalist and specialist GUI agents in realistic settings such as popup manipulation, chat based phishing, payments, and email composition. Experimental results show that EVA substantially improves success rates over static baselines. Under goal agnostic constraints, where the attacker does not know the agent's task intent, EVA still discovers effective patterns. Notably, we find that injection styles transfer well across models, revealing shared behavioral biases in GUI agents. These results suggest that evolving indirect prompt injection is a powerful tool not only for red teaming agents, but also for uncovering common vulnerabilities in their multimodal decision making.

Conversational Recommender Systems (CRSs) engage users in multi-turn interactions to deliver personalized recommendations. The emergence of large language models (LLMs) further enhances these systems by enabling more natural and dynamic user interactions. However, a key challenge remains in understanding how personality traits shape conversational recommendation outcomes. Psychological evidence highlights the influence of personality traits on user interaction behaviors. To address this, we introduce an LLM-based personality-aware user simulation for CRSs (PerCRS). The user agent induces customizable personality traits and preferences, while the system agent possesses the persuasion capability to simulate realistic interaction in CRSs. We incorporate multi-aspect evaluation to ensure robustness and conduct extensive analysis from both user and system perspectives. Experimental results demonstrate that state-of-the-art LLMs can effectively generate diverse user responses aligned with specified personality traits, thereby prompting CRSs to dynamically adjust their recommendation strategies. Our experimental analysis offers empirical insights into the impact of personality traits on the outcomes of conversational recommender systems.

Pro-environmental behavior (PEB) is vital to combat climate change, yet turning awareness into intention and action remains elusive. We explore large language models (LLMs) as tools to promote PEB, comparing their impact across 3,200 participants: real humans (n=1,200), simulated humans based on actual participant data (n=1,200), and fully synthetic personas (n=1,200). All three participant groups faced personalized or standard chatbots, or static statements, employing four persuasion strategies (moral foundations, future self-continuity, action orientation, or "freestyle" chosen by the LLM). Results reveal a "synthetic persuasion paradox": synthetic and simulated agents significantly affect their post-intervention PEB stance, while human responses barely shift. Simulated participants better approximate human trends but still overestimate effects. This disconnect underscores LLM's potential for pre-evaluating PEB interventions but warns of its limits in predicting real-world behavior. We call for refined synthetic modeling and sustained and extended human trials to align conversational AI's promise with tangible sustainability outcomes.

The ability to understand and predict the mental states of oneself and others, known as the Theory of Mind (ToM), is crucial for effective social interactions. Recent research has emerged to evaluate whether Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit a form of ToM. Although recent studies have evaluated ToM in LLMs, existing benchmarks focus predominantly on physical perception with principles guided by the Sally-Anne test in synthetic stories and conversations, failing to capture the complex psychological activities of mental states in real-life social interactions. To mitigate this gap, we propose PersuasiveToM, a benchmark designed to evaluate the ToM abilities of LLMs in persuasive dialogues. Our framework introduces two categories of questions: (1) ToM Reasoning, assessing the capacity of LLMs to track evolving mental states (e.g., desire shifts in persuadees), and (2) ToM Application, evaluating whether LLMs can take advantage of inferred mental states to select effective persuasion strategies (e.g., emphasize rarity) and evaluate the effectiveness of persuasion strategies. Experiments across eight state-of-the-art LLMs reveal that while models excel on multiple questions, they struggle to answer questions that need tracking the dynamics and shifts of mental states and understanding the mental states in the whole dialogue comprehensively. Our aim with PersuasiveToM is to allow an effective evaluation of the ToM reasoning ability of LLMs with more focus on complex psychological activities. Our code is available at https://github.com/Yu-Fangxu/PersuasiveToM.