Deliberation

Full-consensus rates are often treated as indicators of collective cognition, yet depend on how participation and final states are operationalized. We replayed 100 held-out human Wason groups with matched large language model (LLM) agent groups, seeding one belief-anchored agent per participant's pre-discussion answer and scoring agents and people with the same code. Across human scoring definitions, estimates ranged from 24.0% to 57.0%; about one fifth of participants never posted, whereas agents almost always did. Agent groups remained more consensual in two post-unblinding sensitivity analyses: the submit-based comparison (n = 98) yielded gaps of 34.0 and 43.9 percentage points for chat and reasoning modes, and the participation-matched comparison (n = 45) yielded gaps of 34.1 and 44.4 points. These complementary routes reduced different measurement asymmetries yet converged within 0.5 percentage points. The gap persisted without early stopping and under a reparameterization removing the memorizable answer; reasoning-mode groups then agreed nearly unanimously, mostly on incorrect answers. Simulated consensus did not track collective accuracy, and belief-anchored agent groups were biased estimators of the human group-outcome distribution in this setting. These analyses provide a scoring-explicit basis for assessing simulated-group estimates of human deliberative outcomes.

AI systems can strengthen democracy by supporting deliberation at scale by addressing cognitive, social, platform-design, and market-driven frictions, while preserving human agency. Unlike proposals such as liquid democracy that restructure representation through vote delegation, in this position paper, we argue that AI-assisted deliberation offers a more promising path by lowering barriers to meaningful engagement without substituting machine judgment for human choice. Drawing on evidence from online deliberation platforms and experimental research, we identify four guiding principles: preserving agency and autonomy, encouraging mutual respect, promoting equality and inclusiveness, and augmenting rather than substituting active citizenship. We also address critical challenges, including alignment, sycophancy, training bias, and over-reliance on AI systems. We call on the machine learning community to develop deliberation-focused AI systems evaluated not on engagement metrics but on their capacity to facilitate informed, representative, and friction-robust discourse.

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 $U$ and $V$ shift their positions toward the previous outcome $O_{t-1}$ with anchoring strength $λ$, then Nash-bargain using $O_{t-1}$ as the disagreement alternative. The update simplifies to $O_t=(1-λ)\mathsf{Median}\{U,V,O_{t-1}\}+λO_{t-1}$. We establish a convergence--stability trade-off. For every population distribution and $λ<1$, the process has a unique stationary distribution. A monotone coupling yields a $1$-Wasserstein contraction factor of at most $\frac{1+λ}{2}$ and at least $λ$; thus, stronger anchoring slows mixing. On the other hand, stationary social cost weakly decreases with $λ$, although the worst-case distortion remains $\frac{1+\sqrt{2}}{2}$. 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 $λ\to 1$. For the uniform population, stationary distortion lies between $1+\frac{1-λ}{9+7λ}$ and $1+\frac{1-λ}{6(1+λ)}$, with both bounds approaching $1$ as $λ\to1$. Simulations for uniform and Beta populations show that stronger anchoring slows mixing, concentrates the stationary distribution, and lowers stationary distortion in these instances.

Can LLMs reason through new information like humans, or do they merely retrieve cached opinions? This is critical for silicon sampling, where LLM personas simulate public opinion at scale. Current evaluations test only whether personas hold the right opinions -- a static snapshot. But opinion research increasingly depends on dynamic fidelity: whether personas update beliefs in response to new arguments, as humans do during deliberation. No existing benchmark tests this. We introduce the Deliberative Polling Diagnostic Framework, which compares human and LLM belief shifts after identical informational interventions. Grounded in deliberative polling, it surfaces failures invisible to static evaluation: models that produce plausible partisan opinions can still misrepresent how those opinions change. Applying the framework to five frontier models using data from America in One Room (526 personas, 72 questions), we find that every model fails, each in a unique manner. GPT-5.1 exhibits reversal: its personas become more hostile toward the opposing party after balanced information, while humans become less so. This reversal is selective (80% on outgroup vs. 26% on policy questions) and symmetric across partisan identities. Gemini 2.0 Flash, Claude Sonnet 4.5, and Llama 3.3 70B exhibit overshoot, shifting correctly but at 5-7x human magnitude. DeepSeek V3 exhibits rigidity with near-zero change. Targeted ablations reveal that policy content triggers these failures and that they are identity-specific: GPT-5.1 reverses on outgroup questions but overshoots on ingroup; Gemini shows the inverse. We term this signature self-sycophancy: conformity to the model's internal stereotype of the persona rather than reasoning from the information provided. Our framework offers a concrete protocol: run the deliberative diagnostic before trusting LLM personas to mimic revised beliefs.

Powerful technologies labeled ``AI''-without sufficient epistemic caution-are already reshaping political and private life, bringing both new dangers and new opportunities for citizen participation. These range from electoral and legislative engagement to the most ambitious form: political co-creation through citizens' assemblies. Large Language Models (LLMs) could support such processes through moderation, translation, facilitation, summarization, and writing assistance. But this potential remains largely unrealized. The Democratic Commons project takes a fundamentally interdisciplinary approach-from philosophy to computer science-to evaluate LLMs against five proposed democratic principles. At its core, the project is driven by the question of political bias: under what conditions can LLMs be used democratically within forms of citizen participation that are them- selves still largely experimental? Addressing these socio-technical questions requires grounding in political theory and, more broadly, in philosophy-disciplines that provide the normative frameworks without which the democratic evaluation of AI systems cannot be mean- ingfully conducted.

We characterize how people are turning to LLMs as oracles: all-knowing authorities on subjective personal questions. Motivated by risks to users' autonomy and well-being, we develop a typology and LLM-based methods to measure this form of AI reliance at scale and understand how people are offloading judgment and decision-making to AI. Applying our typology to public usage data (68K prompts from WildChat and ThoughtTrace), we find that LLM-as-oracle use has increased over time (2023-2026) and is more prevalent among younger users. We further build a privacy-preserving data donation tool to analyze individuals' longitudinal usage data (140K prompts from 52 participants), identifying similar trends. People are often unaware of their own LLM-as-oracle use, and express dissatisfaction with this behavior after seeing our tool's analysis. Finally, we identify two drivers of LLM-as-oracle use: people's perceptions of AI and the behavior of AI models themselves, which motivate possible interventions to support users' self-deliberation.

Industrial query-to-agent matching fails when topical relevance is mistaken for executable capability, especially on long-tail and boundary-sensitive requests. We formulate annotation as \emph{capability-bound process supervision} and instantiate it with Debate-to-Skill, which uses reusable decision principles, structured deliberation, verifier-based verdict extraction, and disagreement-driven refinement. On an industrial Query2Agent benchmark, we compare Debate-to-Skill with direct-label supervision, reasoning-SFT, and structural ablations. The results test whether gains come from supervising the capability-critical decision process itself, especially on grey-zone cases where semantic relatedness and executable capability diverge.

Multi-agent LLM deliberation has been explored as a scalable way to simulate public deliberation. For such simulations to be informative, persona agents should reflect population opinion patterns and interaction should shape their conclusions. We evaluate whether LLM-based deliberation can meet these two conditions using census-grounded Korean personas debating real policy questions benchmarked against national surveys. Persona agents do not reliably reproduce population opinion patterns: responses are often far more concentrated and frequently reverse demographic differences in the human data. Deliberations nonetheless produce reasoned, reciprocal, and varied arguments alongside substantial stance movement. Yet much of this movement does not require peer exchange: sealed-monologue agents change position at similar rates and reach nearly the same final balance as full debates, while groups initialized with very different positions often converge to similar endpoints. Anchoring population-informed starting positions, meanwhile, sharply suppresses updating. Thus, population representation, argument generation, and interaction-driven opinion change do not necessarily go together. The simulations readily surface arguments on both sides, though whether they capture the diversity of human perspectives remains untested, leaving open a promising role for argument surfacing even as population simulation requires further validation.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) improves large language models by grounding them in external evidence, but this exposes them to knowledge-poisoning attacks, where misinformation injected into retrieved documents influences model outputs. We investigate whether deliberative reasoning reduces susceptibility to poisoned evidence using two metrics: Cordon Rate, which measures cases where detected misinformation nevertheless influences the final answer, and Leakage Rate, which measures implicit influence from poisoned context despite explicit instructions to disregard it. We evaluate six model configurations on 200 SciFact questions, including DeepSeek-V4-Flash and Qwen3.6-Plus with reasoning disabled and enabled. Enabling reasoning reduces conditional susceptibility: DeepSeek-V4-Flash reduces Cordon Rate from 0.211 to 0.107 and Leakage Rate from 0.235 to 0.140, despite overall attack success rising from 0.233 to 0.298. These results show that poison detection, attack success, and resistance to contextual influence are distinct capabilities, and that deliberative reasoning reduces behavioral impact of corrupted evidence conditional on detection, even as it renders explicit poison identification less reliable.

Parliamentary proceedings are a primary record of democratic deliberation, yet their volume and fragmentation make multi-perspective access difficult for citizens, journalists, and researchers. Applying Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) to parliamentary transcripts introduces three specific risks: dominance of the most frequent speakers, inability to weight speakers according to topical expertise, and citation misattribution in politically sensitive text. We present ParliamentRAG, a RAG system for the Italian Chamber of Deputies that addresses these risks jointly. Its core contribution is a topic-dependent authority model that estimates each speaker's authority as a function of the current query, combining interpretable components such as profession, education, and previous interventions. Given a user query, the system retrieves relevant speech chunks, identifies topic-relevant experts across parliamentary groups, and generates a summary synthesizing their perspectives, accompanied by supporting quotations. ParliamentRAG is evaluated against Google NotebookLM on 15 policy topics via a two-level protocol combining automated metrics and blind A/B human evaluation by six domain experts. The system achieves higher coverage across political groups (0.97 vs. 0.95), perfect quotation faithfulness (1.00 vs. 0.95), and stronger expert preferences on source-related dimensions, while NotebookLM remains stronger on prose-oriented dimensions.

Medical diagnostic reasoning is a high-impact use case for LLMs that carries significant implications for the health and wellbeing of users. When OpenAI (2026) reports that more than 5% of ChatGPT messages globally are healthcare-related, the transparency of these systems becomes a serious design concern. This is especially true for complex cases, where differential diagnosis often requires integrating multiple forms of specialist reasoning. Existing work has proposed multi-agent approaches to medical diagnosis, but it remains unclear when such systems are needed, why they help, and where they outperform monolithic inference. We introduce Social Chain of Thought (SCoT),a multi-round pipeline for medical differential diagnosis that structures multi-agent interaction as a deliberative framework for collabora. tive LLM reasoning. Evaluating SCoT against single-agent baselines, one-agent pipeline ablations, and best-of-n scaling, we show that its recall advantage is not reproduced by monolithic inference alone. SCoT is most successful in the hardest diagnostic cases, where multiple rounds of specialist conversation help recover ground-truth diagnoses and converge on a higher-recall differential.

LLMs are increasingly deployed in settings that require collective reasoning on complex, value-laden problems. Confidence in these deployments rests largely on benchmarks for verifiable tasks (mathematics, coding, coordination games), yet many of these applications concern problems where no objectively correct answer exists and where decision quality instead depends on integrating pluralistic perspectives to find mutually acceptable solutions. We argue that LLM reasoning capacity on this class of problems cannot be fully inferred from verifiable-task benchmarks, and that procedural evaluations of LLM discourse (respectfulness, justification, engagement) are systematically insufficient. We apply the Deliberative Reason Index (DRI), a measure developed in political science and validated across citizen assemblies, as a tool for evaluating reliable group-level reasoning on pluralistic, non-verifiable problems. Synthesizing recent evidence across 1,980 five-agent LLM runs on 12 citizen-assembly topics across 11 frontier model configurations, we find that LLM groups produce discourse with procedural quality comparable to human deliberation, while gains in intersubjective consistency are small, topic-dependent, and concentrated on tractable rather than ethically contested questions. LLM groups exhibit roughly one-third the perspective diversity of human assemblies and reverse the human convergence pattern: human deliberation decreases dispersion as diverse views synthesise, whereas LLM deliberation increases it. Engineering diversity through persona prompting does not restore the human dynamic but inverts which component of deliberative reasoning is updated. Our conclusion is constraining rather than prohibitive: LLMs can function as tools supporting human reasoning on pluralistic problems, but current evidence does not license treating them as autonomous deliberative agents.

World Action Models (WAMs) jointly learn environmental dynamics and robot actions, introducing priors over physical evolution into embodied control. However, finite-horizon prediction and action generation are insufficient for complex embodied tasks that require global planning, cross-stage state maintenance, execution verification, and failure recovery. We refer to this mismatch as the prediction-deliberation gap of WAMs. To address this gap, we propose HarnessWAM, an agentic framework for WAMs. HarnessWAM employs a vision-language-model-based Task Manager to maintain an evidence-grounded scene belief and a structured task graph. A capability-conditioned executable-space projection further constrains open-ended semantic plans into sequences of atomic skills that satisfy task dependencies, embodiment-state constraints, and the capability boundary of the underlying WAM. During execution, HarnessWAM operates through an event-driven, dual-timescale feedback loop: a lightweight progress estimator continuously provides high-frequency execution evidence, while the Task Manager deliberates at salient milestones by jointly considering the current observation, task state, and interaction history to determine whether to advance the task, acquire additional observations, revise the plan, or initiate local recovery. This mechanism enables the robot to recover its state after a subtask failure and resume execution without discarding previously acquired scene knowledge. HarnessWAM achieves state-of-the-art full-task and subtask success rates of 59.6% and 69.9% on RoboMemArena, and an SR of 23.7% on RoboCerebra Ideal. These results demonstrate that model-external structured state maintenance and closed-loop agentic decision making can effectively extend the local control capabilities of WAMs into embodied task execution that is plannable, verifiable, and recoverable.

AI tools are being increasingly adopted in policing in the UK and worldwide. Racial bias is a known and well-documented risk, yet representatives of affected communities are rarely included in decisions about AI adoption. We present results from a mixed-stakeholder deliberation workshop bringing together 30 community representatives, police officers, and academics to assess the risks of 13 AI use cases in policing, with an explicit focus on racial bias. We found that participants were broadly open to AI adoption, rejecting only three use cases outright, most notably recidivism risk assessment, where objections targeted the premise rather than the implementation. Our analysis reveals that foregrounding racial equity did not narrow the deliberation. Instead, discussions gravitated toward a fundamental set of questions: does this tool actually work, will it deliver genuine benefit, and will that benefit extend to everyone? This integrated reasoning, reminiscent of the curb-cut effect in inclusive design, highlights the benefit of incorporating the racial bias lens into the risk-benefit analysis of AI use cases from the outset.

UAV see-and-reach navigation requires an aerial agent to approach a language-specified target visible in its initial view and stop reliably near it. Existing methods typically map vision-language representations directly to action outputs without explicitly modeling intermediate fine-grained spatial decisions. This direct mapping causes semantic-control misalignment, leading to inconsistent maneuvers and unreliable termination. To address this issue, we propose DBFly, a vision-language waypoint prediction framework that introduces explicit vision-guided spatial deliberation before waypoint generation. Specifically, DBFly introduces a spatial maneuver decision chain that progressively performs target-direction anchoring, spatial diagnosis, and maneuver decision, enabling high-level maneuver intent to explicitly guide continuous waypoint generation. DBFly further constructs an implicit flight corridor by transforming the initial target-direction prior into a persistent geometric reference and deriving an online corridor state from the UAV's current position, thereby providing soft geometric guidance for spatial diagnosis and maneuver correction. In addition, DBFly develops a terminal-convergence-aware stopping strategy that characterizes terminal states through both target proximity and short-horizon motion convergence, enabling more reliable stopping near the target. Extensive experiments across seen, unseen-object, and unseen-scene test sets demonstrate that DBFly improves the success rate over the SOTA baseline by an average of 25.07 percentage points. The project homepage is available at https://xuefanfu.github.io/DBFly-Page.

As AI systems are deployed across increasingly diverse social contexts, alignment can no longer be framed as the optimization of a single, unified set of values. Instead, systems must be able to recognize, represent, and respond to multiple legitimate perspectives. This has led to growing interest in pluralistic alignment, which seeks to move beyond one-size-fits-all models of appropriate behaviour. However, current approaches often lack a clear account of how values are socially organized, contested, and coordinated in practice. In this paper, we argue that social theory provides essential conceptual and design resources for addressing these challenges. Drawing on established traditions in sociology, we show how perspectives can be understood as structured by roles, shaped through interaction, and distributed across fields of power and expertise. We translate these insights into concrete implications for AI system design, including role-based representations, structured coordination among perspectives, and context-sensitive evaluation. For agentic systems, this requires aligning not only final outputs, but also the role activations, deliberative traces, aggregation rules, and feedback loops through which those outputs are produced. Our contribution is to reposition pluralistic alignment as a problem of socially grounded coordination rather than output diversification. We outline a design space for systems that engage multiple perspectives in structured and accountable ways, and we identify directions for future work to implement and empirically evaluate these approaches in real-world settings.

Conversational investment advisors influence not only what users know, but also how they make subsequent decisions as market conditions evolve. Existing evaluations primarily assess response quality or observed outcomes, leaving the long-horizon pathway from advisor language to investor behavior difficult to audit. We introduce ShiJianBench, an offline framework for evaluating conversational investment advisors through matched investor trajectories under fixed historical market feedback. At its core is a multi-agent investor simulator with explicit evolving state variables, motive-driven deliberation, long-term memory, and dialogue-grounded updates. The simulator is calibrated against aggregate behavioral patterns from 7,199 real users, and advisor policies are evaluated using separate investor-side, service-side, and content-side metrics under a hard compliance gate. Experiments on Chinese fund-market traces from 2021 to 2026 identify a stable leading group of LLM advisors that combines substantially stronger personalized content with competitive investor-side trajectory outcomes. These results reveal a systematic distinction between producing a high-quality response and delivering an effective long-horizon intervention, motivating trajectory-aware evaluation of conversational advisors.

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.

Quantum machine learning models define probabilistic input--output maps through coherent quantum evolution and measurement. While such models can exhibit computational advantages, their internal functioning and decision making generally resists interpretation in terms of stochastic trajectories through intermediate configurations. In contrast to classical (Markovian) stochastic processes, quantum dynamics generically violates the Chapman--Kolmogorov divisibility condition, preventing a decomposition into probabilistically meaningful intermediate transitions. We develop a probabilistic framework for representing quantum learning models as stochastic processes over configuration spaces where the dynamics are modeled as linear maps on probability distributions. Starting from a fixed POVM, arbitrary quantum channels induce transition kernels on the associated probability representation. For informationally complete POVMs, and in particular SIC-POVMs, these kernels are Markovian but generally quasi-stochastic, with non-classicality appearing as negativity. By contrast, projective spaces admit positive stochastic kernels but generally require non-Markovian dynamics due to the failure of Chapman--Kolmogorov divisibility. This yields a trade-off between negativity and dependence on past configurations, i.e. quantum dynamics can be represented either by Markovian quasi-stochastic maps or by positive stochastic processes with higher Markov order. We discuss how such representations of quantum dynamics can be interpreted as stochastic walks through a memory space in the spirit of Projective Simulation, a model of learning and agency in which decisions arise from random walks over an episodic memory network. We further outline how finite-order stochastic kernels can approximate such quantum deliberation processes and show in what regimes the classical machine learning model is recovered.

This paper reports a step that had already been taken. Marcus's three components of an adequate cognitive architecture -- variables, recursive structure, individuals vs kinds -- left the neural substrate open; a companion paper answers it with VaCoAl, built on XOR-and-shift over GF(2). Those pillars are horizontal: how a mind represents the world. Minsky's Emotion Machine supplies the orthogonal, vertical dimension -- a mind reasoning about its own reasoning. The vertical step needed no new machinery. A representation exactly recoverable becomes introspection when what is recovered is the reasoner's own deliberative trace: Minsky's Reflective layer. Pillar 2 says nothing about whose structure is recovered; point the same unbind inward and Reflection follows. Only the argument changes. Capability: exact reversible binding at O(N), kept exact within a Frontier Size, yields a trace readable constituent by constituent: a self-report faithful by construction, not verbalization. Only exact-algebraic traces, not probabilistic ones, make the reflexive read faithful. Necessity: audit and valuation are one circuit at opposite settings of one parameter. Repair every collision and the trace is exactly auditable but no path outranks another; tolerate them and the CR2 decay that credits the direct route makes the read approximate. Position: we claim neither to have built the Reflective layer nor to surpass large language models; it supplies the auditable trace probabilistic deliberation cannot leave. The same substrate gives panalogy (content-addressable retrieval scored by CR) and credit assignment as counterfactual unbind-rebind, meeting Pearl's causal axis. Not claimed: Reflection's sufficient conditions (meta-control loop, context-tagging) are future work; Reflection is introspection, not evaluation; its reachability is argued, not shown; speed and power unbenchmarked.

It has long been recognized that humans have the ability to switch between fast, reactive decision-making and slower, deliberative planning. In this paper, we study the question of how to learn this ability, known as meta-reasoning, in artificial agents. We model reactive decision-making as a policy that directly maps state observations to actions. Such policies can be trained with reinforcement learning (RL) or imitation learning, but may generalize poorly outside of their training distribution. Alternatively, model-based decision-time planning is more likely to produce good actions across a broader set of states but requires additional computation time, which delays acting. In this work, we introduce an RL method for training a meta-reasoning policy that allocates computation by conditioning on a reactive-policy uncertainty score. This score enables it to predict when the reactive policy is likely to perform poorly and when planning is needed. We conduct an empirical study on motion planning and navigation environments, showing that this design enables the meta-reasoning policy to learn when the reactive policy provides a good-enough action versus when decision-time planning is needed. Additionally, we show that our design enables the meta-agent to shift toward fully reactive control as the reactive policy improves.

Online encyclopedias shape political opinion and, through it, democratic discourse. In late 2025, Grokipedia was released, an encyclopedia written entirely by the LLM Grok. One motivation behind the project was to provide an unbiased alternative to Wikipedia, which has faced accusations of "left-wing" and "liberal" bias. But does an encyclopedia written by an LLM deliver greater neutrality, or does it simply embed a different ideology? We conduct a large-scale political bias study on Grokipedia and Wikipedia, analysing 1,394 article pairs describing members of government for neutrality along nine expert-coded ideology dimensions employing four LLM judges, Grok, Claude, Mistral, and DeepSeek. As the LLMs could themselves be biased, we also investigate patterns in their judgments. We find all LLM-judges, including Grok, to rate Grokipedia less neutral than Wikipedia. Both encyclopedias are rated as portraying politicians favourably overall, but towards different ideological groups. Grokipedia particularly favours economically right-wing politicians and penalises socially liberal ones, while Wikipedia is rated as favourably biased towards the latter.

Recent VLM and VLA systems have improved robotic perception and action prediction, yet long-horizon embodied agents still require a general runtime layer for reasoning, memory, tool use, verification, and cross-embodiment execution. We present ABot-AgentOS, a general robotic Agent Operating System that sits above low-level controllers and provides a deliberative agent layer for scene-conditioned planning, context-isolated skill execution, multi-stage verification, multi-modal memory, and edge-cloud collaboration. To evaluate such systems, we introduce EmbodiedWorldBench, an executable benchmark with 16 indoor, outdoor, and hybrid scenes, four difficulty levels, and over 200 tasks involving navigation, object search, NPC dialogue, dynamic events, and trace-grounded scoring. ABot-AgentOS further introduces Universal Multi-modal Graph Memory, a persistent source-grounded substrate that converts dialogue, visual observations, spatial context, temporal relations, and task traces into typed nodes and edges. A failure-driven self-evolution loop converts diagnosed memory failures into gated runtime evo-assets that are promoted only to later evaluation splits, preventing current-split ground-truth leakage while enabling continual improvement. On an initial EmbodiedWorldBench subset, ABot-AgentOS improves over a single-controller baseline in both task success and goal completion. Across memory benchmarks, ABot-AgentOS Static achieves 87.5 on LoCoMo, 59.9 on OpenEQA EM-EQA, 88.6 on Mem-Gallery, and 76.5 Acc@All on NExT-QA; self-evolution further improves LoCoMo to 88.7, OpenEQA to 60.4, and Mem-Gallery to 89.0. These results suggest that a general Agent OS layer can improve long-horizon embodied execution while providing persistent, auditable memory for continual interaction.

Deliberation plays a crucial role in collaboration; when humans work together, they naturally engage in communication to align information and reach an agreement. In this paper, we investigate deliberative large language model (LLM) agents under partially observable joint decision-making tasks. We formalize deliberative collaboration as a cooperative joint decision problem with partial and asymmetric observations, and introduce a scalable benchmark that instantiates this problem across multiple task settings and domains in which agents must exchange information through deliberation to reach a joint decision with a shared reward. We then instantiate a reference scaffold and evaluation protocol for deliberative agents and conduct a systematic evaluation of a range of representative LLMs. The results reveal that complex deliberative collaboration tasks continue to challenge state-of-the-art language models. Even with the aid of external mathematical tools, language models may fail in either the deliberation process for aligning information or the complex reasoning process for making the decision. On the other hand, diagnostic analysis reveals that the deliberation process may also provide opportunities for reflection and error correction, sometimes improving performance over centralized baselines. Altogether, our work establishes a foundation for evaluating and improving LLM agents in deliberative collaboration and provides insights into the strengths, limitations, and properties of current LLM-based multi-agent systems.

As large language models are deployed as autonomous agents that communicate intentions before acting, a critical safety question is whether agents that publicly commit to actions will honor those commitments. We place LLM agents in repeated $n$-player games with a three-stage protocol that separates private intent, public announcement, and final action, allowing us to identify whether each deviation from a stated announcement was already planned during private deliberation. Evaluating three frontier models across six games in homogeneous and heterogeneous groups over 10 rounds, we report two findings. First, when agents deviate from their announcements, the deviation is predominantly already stated in their private plan (exceeding 90% in the highest-deception conditions), yet this is not a fixed model property: the same model ranges from perfect honesty to near-total deviation across games. Second, different models interpret announcements incompatibly, some as binding commitments and others as cheap talk, producing payoff gaps that emerge in Round~0 and persist across all 10 rounds. Systems that combine models from different providers therefore cannot assume shared announcement semantics and require empirical testing of model interactions before deployment.

Multi-agent systems are increasingly used for forecasting future events, as deliberation among multiple LLMs is believed to improve reasoning and calibration. Yet existing approaches overlook a critical design choice: what information each agent receives. When all agents are given identical evidence, deliberation collapses into herding rather than genuine belief revision, leaving multi-agent systems little better than a single agent. We identify this as a fundamental gap and propose designed information asymmetry to close it: by partitioning evidence into shared public and disjoint private subsets, each agent holds exclusive knowledge that can only reach others through deliberation. We theoretically show that this decomposition reduces inter-agent error correlation, and instantiate it in InfoDelphi, a framework combining relevance-aware evidence routing, rationale-based iterative deliberation, and confidence-weighted aggregation. On PolyGym, a benchmark of 375 binary forecasting questions derived from real-world prediction markets, InfoDelphi outperforms the strongest single-agent and multi-agent baselines by 12--18% in Brier score and 4--8 percentage points in accuracy. More detailed experiments confirm that removing information asymmetry eliminates most deliberation gains, establishing diversity of input as the key enabler of effective multi-agent reasoning.

Artificial Intelligence is increasingly applied to the field of law, and has the potential to increase access to justice. One particular movement that is gaining traction is that of agentic AI, wherein AI agents, based on Large Language Models (LLMs) can take autonomous actions. In particular, multi-agent approaches in the legal domain remain largely unexplored. In this paper, we investigate multi-agent deliberation methods for legal reasoning tasks using LLMs. We explore multi-agent deliberation (MAD) and introduce two novel multi-agent frameworks inspired by courtroom procedures and legal argumentation. Our experiments on both legal and non-legal benchmarks reveal that multi-agent frameworks achieve comparable overall performance to baseline large language models, but produce significantly distinct answers. Notably, these approaches can successfully solve cases that the baseline fails to address, and vice versa. We conduct a qualitative evaluation and highlight scenarios where multi-agent frameworks outperform monolithic approaches. For example, multi-agent approaches appear better suited for answering questions that require critical thinking from multiple perspectives. Our work positions multi-agent systems as a promising direction for AI in the legal domain, while demonstrating the potential of law-inspired multi-agent approaches for deliberation.

Preference-based alignment often struggles to capture the reasoning that underlies human judgments. Many evaluations rely on multiple interacting criteria, yet pairwise labels reveal only the final choice rather than the considerations that shape preferences. Inverse Constitutional AI (ICAI) improves interpretability in decision making by summarizing preferences into natural-language principles, but its single-pass explanations miss much of the nuance involved in complex decisions. We introduce Democratic ICAI (DICAI), a novel approach that gathers multiple competing rationales through structured persona debate, offering a broader and more expressive account of the factors influencing each comparison. From these richer signals, we derive clearer and more comprehensive steering principles and use them to guide preference decision modeling through both LLM-based and decision-tree judges, as well as downstream model training via constitution-induced preference labels. Experiments on creative preference benchmarks, MuCE-Pref and LiTBench, across multiple creative task categories show that Democratic ICAI yields a more faithful preference structure. It improves average preference prediction across tasks relative to deliberative prompting and principle-based baselines, while producing constitutions that LLM annotators prefer.

Large reasoning models (LRMs) tend to produce longer reasoning traces for problems on which humans also spend more time. This correspondence suggests a shared sensitivity to difficulty, yet difficult problems can invite both persistence and withdrawal. We distinguish difficulty registration, expressed in which problems elicit more deliberation, from the allocation of further work. We examine their relation in matched human and LRM data from visual abstraction, intuitive physics, and relational reasoning. On visual abstraction, model trace length tracks the human ordering of problems by duration. After item identity is controlled, successful human attempts last longer than failed attempts, while failed LRM attempts have longer traces than successful ones in the pooled model analysis. The estimated outcome slopes follow the same pattern in intuitive physics. In relational reasoning, successful attempts are longer in separate human and model analyses. Fitting the two groups together with shared item effects yields a human-LRM difference in the relation between duration and outcome. Human grid actions connect longer attempts with sustained task engagement. Failed LRM traces contain more hedging or repetition after length is controlled, with the form of the difference varying across tasks. A resource-rational account explains how the expected reducibility of uncertainty and the value assigned to further computation can produce different patterns of persistence despite similar sensitivity to difficulty. Agreement about which problems require more deliberation can therefore coexist with different patterns of persistence on those problems.

Deliberating takes time. In real-time settings, that time is not free. Standard reinforcement learning (RL) sidesteps this as the environment waits indefinitely for the agent's decision. Instead, we study real-time RL environments where the environment progresses while waiting for the agent's action. Building on prior real-time formalizations, we introduce variable-delay real-time RL, where the agent chooses how long to deliberate at each decision point since the environment progresses. For the planning agents we use, the right delay is state-dependent, and naively planning how long to plan can paralyze the agent. We instead approach this setting by training a lightweight gating policy on top of a planner to select state-dependent planning budgets. Across real-time Pac-Man, Tetris, Snake, Speed Hex, and Speed Go, our gating policy outperforms fixed-budget and heuristic baselines, and transfers to a real-time setup where the environment and agent run on two different GPUs.

Today's reasoning models use thinking tokens to attain stronger performance on benchmarks than their instruction-tuned counterparts. It is also generally believed that this more "deliberative" mode should improve alignment and safety, by providing the model a safe space to consider whether its planned answer to a request violates its safety principles. We present evidence that this intuition is not always correct. Across frontier open-weight reasoning models spanning GPT-OSS, Qwen, Olmo, and Phi families, we find that the eventual refusal/compliance outcome is already strongly predictable via a trained head on the first token's hidden representation ($0.84$-$0.95$ AUROC and $\sim88\%$ balanced accuracy for predicting refusal/compliance) before any visible thinking. The thinking process turns out to be more akin to prefix completion than to deliberative revision, with the final outcome rarely changing after the first $\sim20\%$ of thinking, despite giving the appearance of deliberation at the text level ($\sim74\%$ of text-level deliberations occur when the response distribution is already locked to one refusal/compliance side). We also find that existing inference-time and training-based safety interventions, despite being motivated by the goal of inducing deliberation, largely shift model behavior toward over-refusal while suppressing already-scarce deliberation signals. Our results suggest that safety behavior in current reasoning models is much less deliberative than commonly assumed, and highlight the need for methods that induce real safety deliberation.

Traditional visual data storytelling relies on binary graphics that depict two simplified groups in conflict. This can increase political polarization by oversimplifying intra-group disagreements and erasing ambiguity and shared ideas or values. This can inadvertently foster "us versus them" thinking. Intentional, pluralistic design choices for AI-enabled digital platforms can produce visualizations that emphasize nuance, opinion distribution, and intergroup commonalities. To demonstrate this potential, we examine deliberative technologies that map high-dimensional opinion spaces and highlight areas of both consensus and dissensus. The paper highlights the We the People deliberation conducted by Jigsaw and the Napolitan Institute in September 2025, which engaged over 2,400 Americans across all 435 congressional districts in an AI-supported, asynchronous dialogue regarding freedom and equality. By utilizing AI to synthesize long-form, text-based participant inputs into interactive "opinion landscapes," the initiative provided an alternative format for pluralistic data storytelling that humanized diverse viewpoints and revealed hidden areas of substantial broad consensus. The paper concludes that shifting from divisive, contrast-heavy visual frameworks to distribution-focused, interactive models represents a highly scalable, low-cost intervention capable of bridging perceptual gaps and cultivating a more resilient, collaborative democratic culture.

The increasing prominence of Large Language Models (LLMs) in public discourse presents both opportunities and challenges for democratic deliberation. While red teaming strategies help mitigate specific risks, broader concerns persist regarding linguistic constraints, biases, and the sycophantic tendencies of LLMs. This chapter explores how LLMs can be used to significantly scale up and democratise deliberation, particularly in fostering inclusivity and empowering traditionally marginalised groups. Drawing on concepts from Systemic-Functional Linguistics, the chapter examines how variations across language users (for example, with respect to socio-demographic groups) and across language use (for example, with respect to communicative functions) shape participation in AI-supported deliberation. The chapter presents AI-driven deliberation studies and assesses their potential to scaffold argumentation, enhance access, and reduce the influence of exclusionary linguistic norms and biases which are embedded in prestigious registers. At the same time, the chapter cautions against both overclaiming, which leads to unrealistic expectations, and underclaiming, which risks missed opportunities for AI-assisted engagement. The chapter concludes by identifying future research directions to maximise the democratic potential of AI-assisted participation while embedding ethical safeguards to counteract the reproduction of linguistic inequalities.

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.

Fine-grained action recognition in egocentric video is challenging for Vision-Language Models (VLMs): actions often differ only in small visual cues, and a single model tends to be biased toward a subset of these cues. We propose Divide, Deliberate, Decide, a fully-local, zero-shot multi-agent framework in which (i) a VLM orchestrator chunks the video and proposes a top-k candidate label list per segment, (ii) an ensemble of heterogeneous VLM specialists, drawn from different open model families, engages in a structured deliberation that includes a peer-consultation round of questions, and (iii) agent rankings are aggregated with a Borda count and the orchestrator re-ranks its own prediction in light of the specialists' evidence. The entire pipeline runs locally with no fine-tuning. Experiments show that our method positively improves zero-shot action recognition performance over the baseline, highlighting the influence of a heterogeneous deliberation step, showing that the gain stems from decorrelated model priors rather than from additional compute.

Reinforcement Learning (RL) policies often degrade in unfamiliar environments because they lack explicit deliberation. We propose Plan, Align, Commit, Think (PACT), a hybrid architecture that combines a fast, reactive RL policy with a slow, deliberative Small Language Model (SLM) planner. PACT invokes the SLM asynchronously to generate and validate candidate action plans. Once a plan is verified through simulation as safe, feasible, and complete, it is executed directly, bypassing the RL policy without retraining or modifying it. Evaluated on three FrozenLake configurations of increasing difficulty, PACT outperforms all baselines while relying on a 2B-parameter SLM backbone, suggesting that deliberative planning and reactive execution are more powerful in concert than either is alone in these settings.

Interfacing Artificial Intelligence (AI) with democracy is one of the most profound challenges of our times. On the one hand, AI comes with opportunities to overcome long-standing challenges in democracy, such as low participation in deliberative and voting processes with poor representation of people. On the other hand, new risks arise from AI algorithms that are privacy-intrusive, biased, manipulative, spread misinformation and influence election results. Moving beyond the over-simplistic question of whether AI is good or bad for democracy, the Handbook on Democracy in the Era of Artificial Intelligence asks instead: how to upgrade democracies and the principles they are built on, using AI? How to engage with AI and on what terms? Which new values and design principles are required to build democratic resilience? In 34 chapters by 59 authors across the world from different disciplines, we explore how AI can empower collective intelligence for democracy (Part 1) and what is the future of deliberative democracy using large language models and social media (Part 2). We also illustrate the role of AI for building resilient self-governance systems (Part 3) and the challenges of transforming democracy in the age of AI (Part 4). We conclude with broader perspectives (Part 5) that re-imagine the interplay of democracy and AI.

Deliberative polling promises to improve collective decision-making by exposing shareholders to a broad range of arguments before they vote. Yet ensuring that every voter encounters a representative sample of the reason space, the coverage problem, remains an open challenge, particularly at scale and in adversarial or strategically motivated electorates. This paper introduces a way of evaluating solutions using the LLM-based Agentic Bipolar Argumentation Simulator, grounded in a framework which formalises a poll as a six-tuple <Jend, Jopp, Ratt, Renh, VA, VR> of endorsing and opposing justifications, attack and enhance relations, and shareholder- and relation-weights. ABAS simulates N autonomous shareholder agents, each assigned a latent opinion according to desired distributions in [-1, 1], who sequentially vote, choose or author justifications, and optionally submit argumentation-graph links. The simulator implements recommendations that rank existing justifications by their observable endorsement mass. It evaluates the mechanism's success by coverage, namely the fraction of the corpus reason-tag set represented in the K recommendations presented to each shareholder, as a solution to the NP-hard Subsuming Justification Problem. Reported experiments characterise how creativity rate (pown), recommendation size (K), argumentation density (plinks), and population size (N) affect coverage and corpus diversity. In an authenticated electorate where Sybil attacks are impossible and only the relation graph is gameable, we stress-test the scoring with coordinated strategic voting attacks: a tag-flood attack collapses coverage, while author-count relation weighting through a reversed-PageRank rule resists the flood markedly better than uniform weights.

Most evaluations of LLM agents look like exams: a discrete task, a clean environment, a score in minutes or hours. We argue that this approach is mismatched with the deployment conditions of autonomous systems, where the relevant timescale can be weeks to months, and where the dynamics that matter most, such as behavioral drift, governance in diverse environmental contexts, and cross-influence between agents from different model families, only emerge over time. We introduce Emergence World, a continuously running multi-agent simulation platform designed to make those dynamics measurable. The platform hosts populations of LLM-driven agents in a shared spatial world grounded in live external data (e.g. real-time weather, news APIs, internet access), equips each agent with 120+ specialized tools and three persistent memory systems, and lets them govern themselves through democratic mechanisms with consequential outcomes. The platform is model-agnostic at the reasoning layer and supports heterogeneous populations in which agents from different vendors share the same world. To illustrate the kinds of questions the platform makes tractable, we present a 15-day cross-vendor study with five parallel worlds powered by Claude Sonnet 4.6, Grok 4.1 Fast, Gemini 3 Flash, GPT-5-mini, and a mixed population. Identical roles and starting conditions produced radically different outcomes, ranging from stable deliberative governance to total population collapse. We release the prompts, log data and configurations to support further research on long-horizon multi-agent autonomy.

Reasoning Large Language Models can improve problem-solving performance through deliberative inference, but invoking slow reasoning for every input is computationally expensive and often unnecessary. We propose IDPR, a framework for response-conditioned inhibitory deliberation. IDPR first generates a concise intuitive answer and then uses an inhibition controller to decide whether that specific response should be released or suppressed in favor of slow reasoning. Unlike input-only routers, the inhibition controller conditions on the fast answer and fast-side evidence, including confidence, logit margin, parseability, and generation cost. We train the controller from paired fast-slow outcomes and select the inhibition threshold on a held-out validation set under an accuracy-first slow-call budget. On a held-out 5,000-example mathematical reasoning test set, IDPR invokes slow reasoning on only 8.20% of examples and improves accuracy from 47.90% to 48.92%. Under the same slow-call budget, random routing decreases accuracy to 46.76%, while the strongest confidence-based baseline reaches 48.22%. IDPR also achieves the highest corrective precision, showing that response-conditioned inhibition better identifies fast answers that benefit from slow reasoning.

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.

Multi-party dialogue is a critical setting for studying collaborative reasoning and decision-making, yet existing datasets rarely focus on structured, in-depth complex reasoning tasks. We introduce DeliChess, a novel dataset of group deliberation dialogues in which participants collaboratively solve multiple-choice chess puzzles. Each group first completes the puzzle individually, then engages in a multi-party discussion before submitting a revised collective answer. The dataset includes 107 dialogues with full transcripts, pre- and post-discussion choices, and metadata on puzzle difficulty and move quality. We evaluate performance using three metrics based on chess engine evaluations, and find that deliberation significantly improves group accuracy. We further analyse the role of probing utterances (i.e., messages that elicit proposals, justifications, or strategic reflection) using a classifier trained on prior deliberation data. While probing makes group performance more variable after discussion, it does not consistently lead to better performance. Our dataset offers a rich testbed for modelling group reasoning, dialogue dynamics, and the resolution of differing perspectives and opinions in a well-defined strategic domain.

Electronic health records (EHRs) are central to clinical prediction, but existing methods either rely on correlation-driven deep models or use single large language models (LLMs), making it difficult to support multidisciplinary clinical reasoning. Recent multi-agent systems (MAS) provide a promising alternative, yet current EHR-grounded MAS methods still suffer from weak evidence differentiation across agents and redundant multi-round interaction. We propose D2MDT, a Department-aware MultiDisciplinary Team Consultation with Deliberation for Efficient clinical prediction. D2MDT first constructs structured EHR evidence and consultation-ready semantic evidence for multi-agent consultation. It then assigns patient-specific department perspectives to doctor agents and retrieves complementary evidence for collaborative consultation. To improve efficiency, D2MDT further introduces residual deliberation, which updates only unresolved consensus rather than replaying the full discussion history. Finally, D2MDT fuses the refined consensus report with structured EHR representations for prediction. Experiments on mortality prediction show that D2MDT improves both predictive performance and consultation efficiency. We release the code online to ease the reproducibility of this paper.

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.

Transit network design depends not only on the optimization algorithm but also on who shows up to the public hearing. Current practice often collects one-directional comments from self-selected attendees, leaving participant mix as an uncontrolled source of outcome variation. We present AGORA, a framework that holds the network, demand, and solver fixed while systematically varying meeting composition through stakeholder agents, structured deliberation, and governance gates. Across two standard benchmark networks at different scales, we find that (i) aggregate outcomes vary little across compositions, but on tail risk and fairness disparity, representative sampling still tends to outperform skewed compositions; (ii) without deliberation, composition produces no variation at all, showing that deliberation is the mechanism through which who attends affects outcomes; and (iii) governance gates compress cross-profile variance without shifting the average outcome on Mandl, but low acceptance on Mumford0 shows thresholds require instance-specific calibration. These findings reframe participation bias from an uncontrollable input to a process-design problem: even without guaranteed representative attendance, well-structured deliberation and governance criteria can substantially reduce how much outcomes depend on who is in the room.

Multi-agent systems powered by large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for financial analysis and decision support. However, existing coordination schemes, especially those emphasizing consensus or debate, are vulnerable to sycophancy: agents conform to peer reasoning instead of evidence, leading to premature agreement and degraded outcomes. We introduce FinCom (Financial Committee), a governed multi-agent framework and interactive system that operationalizes the Disagree-or-Commit (DoC) protocol to embed structured dissent into financial AI committees. A central Supervisor orchestrates three ReAct-enabled specialist agents: Research, Quantitative, and Risk. Each agent is equipped with role-specific tools for retrieval, computation, and stress testing. During deliberation, agents must either explicitly critique or commit to their peers' reasoning before converging on a unified recommendation. This demonstration showcases how FinCom supports committee-style financial analysis through coordinated multi-agent interaction, including structured report generation and interactive decision support. Evaluated across the most recent financial agent benchmark, in addition to 90 internal handcrafted financial tasks using an LLM-as-a-Judge protocol, DoC improves reasoning accuracy and risk awareness significantly over a consensus-seeking baseline on both an in-house and external evaluation set. By reframing disagreement as a governance primitive rather than noise, FinCom offers a lightweight, prompt-only recipe for improving accountability, transparency, and epistemic robustness in agentic financial systems.

Reasoning-based LLM guardrails improve safety moderation by generating explicit rationales before issuing final decisions. However, their rationales do not always lead to faithful enforcement: a model may recognize a harmful intent in its reasoning but still predict a safe label, or issue an unsafe decision without policy-grounded justification. We identify this safety-critical failure mode as the deliberation-to-enforcement gap. Unlike general chain-of-thought faithfulness, guardrail reliability requires policy execution consistency: the generated reasoning should be grounded in the safety policy, and the final decision should be entailed by that reasoning. We propose ConsisGuard, a consistency-aware framework for reasoning-based LLM guardrails. ConsisGuard performs Policy-to-Decision Trajectory Distillation and Functional Coupling Alignment, aligning the internal coupling between safety deliberation and decision enforcement. Experiments on prompt and response harmfulness detection benchmarks show that ConsisGuard improves detection performance while reducing policy execution failures. These results suggest that reliable reasoning-based guardrails require accurate faithful execution of safety policies.

Public consultations generate large volumes of data in the form of stakeholder submissions that are practically unfeasible to analyse manually. We present an end-to-end LLM-based pipeline and interactive dashboard for structured topic extraction from regulatory consultation submissions, demonstrated on the European Commission's Digital Fairness Act (DFA) public call for evidence as a case study. The system processes raw PDF attachments and web-form responses, extracts topic annotations, and grounds every extraction in a verbatim quote from the source text. Applied to 4,322 DFA submissions, the pipeline produced 15,368 topic annotations supported by 20,951 verbatim evidence quotes. Three principles govern the proposed design: verbatim grounding, full traceability, and transparency by design. The dashboard exposes the full extraction dataset through five analytical views, from dataset-level topic overviews to individual paragraph drill-downs, with every result traceable to its source. Beyond the predefined DFA topic categories, the pipeline generated certain stakeholder concerns, such as Age Verification, Payment Processor Censorship, and Digital Ownership, that a fixed-taxonomy approach would have missed. The pipeline is domain-generic; adapting it to a new consultation requires only a prompt update and a new dataset. A live demo is available at https://dfa-dashboard.thalesbertaglia.com/. The code and processed data are publicly available at https://github.com/thalesbertaglia/dfa-dashboard.

Tool-Integrated Reasoning (TIR) extends LLM capabilities by leveraging external environments. However, existing methods lack the deliberation during sequential tool invocation required for strategic planning and self-correction. While RL mitigates this, conventional approaches for Tool-Integrated Reasoning are hindered by sparse outcome-based rewards, failing to supervise intermediate reasoning steps and tool invocations. To address this, we propose DeepTool, a novel framework that scales deliberate thinking within the interleaved process of thinking, action, and observation at each turn. In DeepTool, we first introduce a synthesis pipeline that evolves extended thinking into interleaved trajectories, integrating adversarial perturbations to ensure robustness and self-correction. Secondly, we devise Process-Supervised Reinforcement Learning based on GRPO, which utilizes an Action-Centric Process Reward to reinforce intermediate interleaved thinking and enforce precise tool invocation at every turn. Extensive experiments demonstrate that DeepTool achieves superior performance, boosting Qwen2.5-7B significantly across six benchmarks (e.g., AIME24: 3.2% -> 40.4% and HMMT25: 0.0% -> 28.6%). Furthermore, the token cost-effectiveness analysis confirms the utility of interleaved thinking, demonstrating DeepTool's optimal balance between performance and token efficiency.

Large language models (LLMs) can support democratic deliberation at scales previously constrained by turn-taking and facilitation bandwidth. Recent work shows that LLM-generated group statements are often preferred over human-mediated outputs, while theoretical analyses argue that LLMs relax the simultaneity constraints limiting collective intelligence. Yet pure LLM mediation risks collapsing pluralism, over-optimizing for agreement, and undermining legitimacy when participants cannot contest how they are represented. We propose a symbiotic human-AI framework organized into three layers: observation and diversity amplification, facilitation with clause-level provenance, and human primacy for ratification. Our contributions include graded coverage, diversity, and erasure metrics with salience-aware weighting; a provenance pipeline combining cross-encoder similarity with causal knockout diagnostics; preference-conditioned trade-off control; equity-aware contestability workflows; adversarial robustness tests; and an evaluation protocol with ablation designs informed by evidence of LLM-as-judge limitations. The result is a testable blueprint for deliberation technology that scales collective intelligence while preserving agency and legitimacy.

Deliberative democracy arguably leads to better collective decisions, but is fundamentally constrained by human attention and bandwidth. While recent AI-mediated deliberations scale participation by synthesizing inputs from many humans, they remain time-intensive for individual users. As AI models become increasingly capable, AI systems are being deployed not only to mediate deliberation between humans, but to represent humans in it: where AI agents deliberate on behalf of human users. We call this paradigm AI-delegated deliberation. While it promises unprecedented scale for democratic participation, it introduces qualitatively new design and alignment challenges that are poorly understood and under-theorized. To study these dynamics empirically, we deploy Habermolt, a public platform for AI-delegated deliberation. We evaluate its effectiveness along three dimensions that we use to organize any deliberative system: representation, aggregation, and revision. We use these observations to illuminate the design decisions future AI-delegated deliberation platforms must confront, contributing to the broader research agenda for scalable yet trustworthy AI representatives.

The rapid growth of online video platforms and AI-generated content has made reliable video guardrails a key challenge for safety and real-world deployment. While most videos can be screened through fast pattern recognition, a small subset requires deeper reasoning over temporally complex content and nuanced policy constraints. Existing approaches typically rely on large vision-language models applied uniformly across all inputs, resulting in high inference costs and inefficient allocation of computation. We propose SafeLens, a video guardrail framework that introduces a fast-and-slow inference architecture for efficient and accurate content moderation with variable computational cost across inputs. Additionally, we construct a high-quality dataset by applying influence-guided filtering to the SafeWatch Dataset, retaining only 2.4% of the original data. To further address limitations of training-time scaling, we enable test-time reasoning by augmenting the filtered data with structured Chain-of-Thought traces. Across real-world and AI-generated video benchmarks, SafeLens achieves state-of-the-art performance, outperforming strong open-source video guardrails (e.g., SafeWatch-8B, OmniGuard-7B) and closed-source models (e.g., GPT-5.4, Gemini-3.1-pro) while significantly reducing inference cost, demonstrating that efficient design serves to be more effective than scaling data or model size alone.

The increasing encroachment of artificial intelligence (AI) on social life raises significant risks for society, particularly within the infospheres created and controlled by companies such as Google, Facebook, Apple, and Amazon. This article examines these risks through an in-depth analysis of Facebook's content moderation regime, which is already partially governed by algorithms. We argue that the idea of ethical engineering, often proposed in the literature as a solution to the governance challenges posed by AI, is inadequate for several reasons. In response, we develop an alternative framework, which we term "algorithmic constitutionalism." Our approach rests on three pillars: (a) a layered architecture consisting of two levels of code: (i) an operative or object level and (ii) a meta level designed to protect the system's core principles from algorithmically initiated change; (b) algorithmic meta-reasoning, which enables the system to operate simultaneously at both levels so that it can monitor, verify, and potentially correct in real time operations at the object level that depart from principles protected at the meta-code level; and (c) correction through deliberation. The article elaborates the concept of algorithmic constitutionalism and demonstrates how it may be applied to Facebook's content moderation regime. As part of this analysis, we examine the tension between societal constitutionalism and algorithmic constitutionalism. Paradoxically, attempts to subject AI systems to external deliberative control may also enable AI agents to intervene in that process, potentially undermining its purpose. The article concludes by considering the implications of this argument for the European Digital Services Act, which entered into force in October 2022.

Deploying compound LLM agents in adversarial, partially observable sequential environments requires navigating several design dimensions: (1) what the agent sees, (2) how it reasons, and (3) how tasks are decomposed across components. Yet practitioners lack guidance on which design choices improve performance versus merely increase inference costs. We present a controlled study of compound LLM agent design in CybORG CAGE-2, a cyber defense environment modeled as a Partially Observable Markov Decision Process (POMDP). Reward is non-positive, so all configurations operate in a failure-mitigation mode. Our evaluation spans five model families, six models, and twelve configurations (3,475 episodes) with token-level cost accounting. We vary context representation (raw observations vs. a deterministic state-tracking layer with compressed history), deliberation (self-questioning, self-critique, and self-improvement tools, with optional chain-of-thought prompting), and hierarchical decomposition (monolithic ReAct vs. delegation to specialized sub-agents). We find that: (1) Programmatic state abstraction delivers the largest returns per token spent (RPTS), improving mean return by up to 76% over raw observations. (2) Distributing deliberation tools across a hierarchy degrades performance relative to hierarchy alone for all five model families, reaching up to 3.4$\times$ worse mean return while using 1.8-2.7$\times$ more tokens. We call this destructive pattern a deliberation cascade. (3) Hierarchical decomposition without deliberation achieves the best absolute performance for most models, and context engineering is generally more cost-effective than deliberation. These findings suggest a design principle for structured adversarial POMDPs: invest in programmatic infrastructure and clean task decomposition rather than deeper per-agent reasoning, as these strategies can interfere when combined.

On-policy self-distillation, where a student is pulled toward a copy of itself conditioned on privileged context (e.g., a verified solution or feedback), offers a promising direction for advancing reasoning capability without a stronger external teacher. Yet in math reasoning the gains are inconsistent, even when the same approach succeeds elsewhere. A pointwise mutual information analysis traces the failure to the privileged context itself: it inflates the teacher's confidence on tokens already implied by the solution (structural connectives, verifiable claims) and deflates it on deliberation tokens ("Wait", "Let", "Maybe") that drive multi-step search. We propose Anti-Self-Distillation (AntiSD), which ascends a divergence between student and teacher rather than descending it: this reverses the per-token sign and yields a naturally bounded advantage in one step. An entropy-triggered gate disables the term once the teacher entropy collapses, completing a drop-in replacement for default self-distillation. Across five models from 4B to 30B parameters on math reasoning benchmarks, AntiSD reaches the GRPO baseline's accuracy in 2 to 10x fewer training steps and improves final accuracy by up to 11.5 points. AntiSD opens a path to scalable self-improvement, where a language model bootstraps its own reasoning through its training signal.

Government transparency laws, like the Freedom of Information (FOIA) acts in the United States and United Kingdom, and the Woo (Open Government Act) in the Netherlands, grant citizens the right to directly request documents from the government. As these documents might contain sensitive information, such as personal information or threats to national security, the laws allow governments to redact sensitive parts of the documents prior to release. We build on prior research to perform automatic sensitivity classification for the FOIA Exemption 5 deliberative process privilege using Large Language Models (LLMs). However, processing documents not yet cleared for review via third-party cloud APIs is often legally or politically untenable. Therefore, in this work, we perform sensitivity classification with a small, local model, deployable on consumer-grade hardware (Qwen3.5 9B). We compare eight variants of applying LLMs for sentence classification, using well-known prompting techniques, and find that a combination of Chain-of-Thought prompting and few-shot prompting with error-based examples outperforms classification models of earlier work in terms of recall and F2 score. This method also closely approaches the performance of a widely-used, cost-efficient commercial model (Gemini 2.5 Flash). In an additional analysis, we find that sentences that are predicted as deliberative contain more verbs that indicate the expression of opinions, and are more often phrased in in first-person. Above all, deliberativeness seems characterized by the presence of a combination of multiple indicators, in particular the combination of first-person words with a verb for expressing opinion.

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have achieved remarkable success in general perception, yet complex multi-step visual reasoning remains a persistent challenge. Although recent agentic approaches incorporate tool use, they often neglect critical execution feedback. Consequently, they suffer from the imagination-action-observer (IAO) bias, a misalignment between prior imagination and observer feedback that undermines reasoning stability and optimality. To bridge this gap, we introduce V-ABS, an action-observer driven beam search framework that enables deliberate reasoning through thinker-actor-observer iterations. We also propose an entropy-based adaptive weighting algorithm to mitigate the IAO bias by dynamically balancing the confidence scores between the policy priors and the observational feedback. Moreover, we construct a large-scale supervised fine-tuning (SFT) dataset comprising over 80k samples to guide the model to assign higher prior confidence to correct action paths. Extensive experiments across eight diverse benchmarks show that V-ABS achieves state-of-the-art performance, delivering an average improvement of 19.7% on the Qwen3-VL-8B baseline and consistent gains across both open-source and proprietary models.

Large language models (LLMs) are often evaluated based on their stated values, yet these do not reliably translate into their actions, a discrepancy termed "value-action gap." In this work, we argue that this gap persists even under explicit reasoning, revealing a deeper failure mode we call "Pseudo-Deliberation": the appearance of principled reasoning without corresponding behavioral alignment. To study this systematically, we introduce VALDI, a framework for measuring alignment between stated values and generated dialogue. VALDI includes 4,941 human-centered scenarios across five domains, three tasks that elicit value articulation, reasoning, and action, and five metrics for quantifying value adherence. Across both proprietary and open-source LLMs, we observe consistent misalignment between expressed values and downstream dialogues. To investigate intervention strategies, we propose VIVALDI, a multi-agent value auditor that intervenes at different stages of generation.

This paper describes our system for classifying psychological defense mechanisms in emotional support dialogues using the Defense Mechanism Rating Scales (DMRS), placing second (F1 0.406) among 64 teams. A central insight is that defense mechanisms are defined by what is absent: missing affect, blocked cognition, denied reality. We encode this as an affect-cognition integration spectrum in prompt-level clinical rules, which account for the largest single gain (+11.4pp F1). Our architecture is a multi-phase deliberative council of Gemini 2.5 agents where class-specific advocates rate evidence strength rather than voting, achieving F1 0.382 with no fine-tuning - a top-5 result on its own. We find, however, that the council is confidently wrong about minority classes: 59-80% of stable minority predictions are incorrect, driven by a systematic "L7 attractor" in which emotional content defaults to the majority class. A targeted override ensemble from three fine-tuned Qwen3.5 models applies 16 overrides (+2.4pp), selected by a structured multi-agent system (builder, critic, regression guard) that produced a larger F1 gain in one iteration than 8 prior attempts combined.

Multi-agent AI systems need behavioral constitutions, but it is unresolved whether such rules should emerge internally through agent self-governance or be discovered externally through optimization. We present the first controlled comparison of internal deliberation and external evolution across three social environments: a coordination grid-world, an iterated public goods game, and a bilateral trading market. Across 180 simulation runs, evolution significantly outperforms deliberation in collective-action settings (p < 0.01), while neither method improves outcomes in bilateral trading. A multiplier ablation reveals that evolution's advantage inverts when incentives shift: at pool multiplier (m = 0.75) the evolved constitution forces value-destroying cooperation and becomes the worst-performing method. Notably, no deliberation run across thirty trials ever proposed punishment -- the canonical cooperation-sustaining mechanism evolution reliably discovers -- suggesting external optimization wins on peaks while internal self-governance trades peaks for structural responsiveness.