cs.GTSep 15, 2026

Anchored Sequential Deliberation

Authors: Sijing TuAshish Goel

Abstract

Sequential deliberation is a mechanism for collective decision making: at each round, a uniformly randomly selected pair is asked to revise a collective outcome, which then becomes the reference point for the next round. Existing theory by Fain et al.~\cite{fain2017sequential} treats the current outcome solely as the disagreement alternative in bargaining. Yet an existing draft, policy, or proposal might carry social influence and anchor participants' expressed positions toward the status quo. We introduce anchored sequential deliberation on a one-dimensional decision space. In each round, two participants with bliss points UU and VV shift their positions toward the previous outcome Ot1O_{t-1} with anchoring strength λλ, then Nash-bargain using Ot1O_{t-1} as the disagreement alternative. The update simplifies to Ot=(1λ)Median{U,V,Ot1}+λOt1O_t=(1-λ)\mathsf{Median}\{U,V,O_{t-1}\}+λO_{t-1}. We establish a convergence--stability trade-off. For every population distribution and λ<1λ<1, the process has a unique stationary distribution. A monotone coupling yields a 11-Wasserstein contraction factor of at most 1+λ2\frac{1+λ}{2} and at least λλ; thus, stronger anchoring slows mixing. On the other hand, stationary social cost weakly decreases with λλ, although the worst-case distortion remains 1+22\frac{1+\sqrt{2}}{2}. We also identify a unique \emph{deliberative fixed point}, where the expected unanchored movement is zero, and prove that the stationary distribution concentrates around it as λ1λ\to 1. For the uniform population, stationary distortion lies between 1+1λ9+7λ1+\frac{1-λ}{9+7λ} and 1+1λ6(1+λ)1+\frac{1-λ}{6(1+λ)}, with both bounds approaching 11 as λ1λ\to1. Simulations for uniform and Beta populations show that stronger anchoring slows mixing, concentrates the stationary distribution, and lowers stationary distortion in these instances.

Explore similar work

Jun 17, 2026cs.AI

Hidden Anchors in Multi-Agent LLM Deliberation

Multi-agent LLM deliberation, where agents exchange and revise answers over several rounds, is increasingly used to improve reasoning and accuracy, yet how and why it works is rarely modelled. Such deliberation mirrors how humans reach decisions. As social animals we are pulled both by the group, the herd effect that classical opinion-dynamics models such as DeGroot and Friedkin--Johnsen capture, and by our own internal belief, which they do not. We model multi-agent deliberation as a closed-loop dynamical system in which each agent carries a hidden internal belief, its anchor, that continually pulls its opinion regardless of its neighbours. We show this anchor can be recovered from the deliberation alone, and that it explains a behaviour classical consensus rules forbid: an agent's confidence in the correct answer can climb past where any agent started, escaping the space (convexhull) formed by the initial beliefs. Checking whether the recovered anchor also predicts held-out runs (generalizes) gives a simple test for when a model is truly driven bysuch an anchor. Across three open-weight model families this is a spectrum, not all-or-nothing. All anchors' influence are about equally strongly, but they differ in where the anchor sits, and only when it sits far from the initial opinions does deliberation escape the hull and need the full closed-loop model.
Apurba Pokharel, Ram Dantu
May 12, 2026cs.GT

The End Justifies the Mean: A Linear Ranking Rule for Proportional Sequential Decisions

AI alignment and participatory design motivate a new democratic design problem: how to collectively choose a decision rule to use repeatedly. We study this problem for linear ranking rules, which repeatedly rank items xjx_j within batches X=(x1,,xm)(Rd)mX=(x_1,\dots,x_m)\in(\mathbb{R}^d)^m, where each item's ranking is dictated by its score θ,xj\langle θ^*,x_j\rangle according to a fixed scoring vector θθ^*. Given voters' preferred scoring vectors θ(1),,θ(n)θ^{(1)},\dots,θ^{(n)} and their population fractions α(1),,α(n)α^{(1)},\dots,α^{(n)}, we ask how to choose a collective vector θθ^* satisfying individual proportionality (IP): every voter type ii should agree with the resulting rankings to an α(i)α^{(i)}-proportional degree, either on average over time (long-run IP) or even within each batch (per-batch IP). The default rule, the arithmetic mean of the θ(i)θ^{(i)}, has been shown to be severely majoritarian; more generally, it is not clear that any fixed linear rule can balance many voters' disparate opinions. Our main result is that, surprisingly, there is a simple rule that does satisfy long-run IP: the angular mean, the spherical analog of the arithmetic mean. We then show that exact per-batch IP is impossible for fixed linear rules, but that the gap between per-batch and long-run IP shrinks quickly with batch size. Experiments on three real-world preference datasets show that all rules perform similarly when voters' preferences are homogeneous, while the angular mean substantially improves proportionality in high-disagreement regimes.
Carmel Baharav, Niclas Boehmer, Bailey Flanigan +1
Jun 2, 2026cs.CL

The Deliberative Illusion: Diagnosing Factual Attrition and Stance Homogenization in Multi-Agent LLM Deliberation

Multi-agent LLM systems often treat consensus as evidence of successful interaction. For deliberative problems, however, reliability depends on whether agents preserve the facts and viewpoints needed to interpret an issue. We identify the deliberative illusion: discussion produces (1) factual attrition, the progressive loss of issue-critical facts, alongside (2) stance homogenization, the collapse of diverse positions toward consensus. To measure this process, we introduce DelibTrace, a framework that decomposes each issue into atomic facts, labels issue-critical ones, distributes them across agents, and tracks their survival across discussion rounds. Across ethical and news-based deliberation with three representative LLM families, multi-agent discussion erases up to 72% of issue-critical facts. This loss is consequential: retained evidence can reconstruct the issue misleadingly, final stances remain anchored in base-model priors, and a single malicious agent can inject misinformation into the shrinking shared context. These results reveal a sharper risk: agents can agree more while knowing less. We call for evaluations that measure which facts, uncertainties, and legitimate disagreements survive interaction.
Herun Wan, Jiaying Wu, Minnan Luo +4