Deliberation

Modern AI is opening the door to collective decision-making in which participants express their views as free-form text rather than voting on a fixed set of candidates. A natural idea is to embed these opinions in a vector space so that the substantial literature on facility location problems and fair clustering can be brought to bear. But standard text embeddings measure semantic similarity, whereas distances in facility location problems and fair clustering require what we call \textit{preferential similarity}: a participant's agreement with a piece of text should be inversely related to their distance from it. Off-the-shelf embeddings inherit a coarse preference signal through a correlation between semantic and preferential similarity, but fail to capture preferences when the correlation breaks. We formalize this as an invariance problem: text embedding models encode both a preference-relevant signal (stance and values) and semantic nuisance (style and wording), and the two are observationally correlated, so a geometry that relies on nuisance can appear preference-correct even when it is not. We show that synthetic training data designed to break this correlation provably shifts the optimal scorer away from nuisance-dominated cosine and significantly improves preference prediction across 11 online deliberation datasets.

Sparse MoE models achieve a good balance between capacity and compute by routing each token to a small subset of experts. However, in most MoE architectures, once a token is routed, the selected experts process it independently and their outputs are combined via a weighted sum. This leaves open whether enabling communication among them could improve performance. While prior work has raised this question, direct interaction among the active routed experts remains underexplored. In this paper, we propose SDG-MoE (Signed Debate Graph Mixture-of-Experts), a novel architecture that adds a lightweight, iterative deliberation step before final aggregation. SDG-MoE introduces three components: (i) two learned interaction matrices over the active experts, a support graph $A^+$ and a critique graph $A^-$, capturing reinforcing and corrective influences; (ii) a signed message-passing step that updates expert representations before aggregation; and (iii) a disagreement-gated Friedkin-Johnsen-style anchoring that controls deliberation strength while preventing expert drift. Together, these enable a structured deliberation process where interaction strength scales with disagreement and specialization is preserved. We also provide a theoretical analysis establishing stability conditions on expert states and showing that deliberation adds only low-order overhead over the active set. In controlled three-seed pretraining experiments, SDG-MoE improves validation perplexity over both an unsigned graph communication baseline and vanilla MoE, outperforming the strongest baseline by 19.8%, and gives the best external perplexity on WikiText-103, C4, and Paloma among the compared systems.

Frontier AI systems perform best in settings with clear, stable, and verifiable objectives, such as code generation, mathematical reasoning, games, and unit-test-driven tasks. They remain less reliable in open-ended settings, including scientific assistance, long-horizon agents, high-stakes advice, personalization, and tool use, where the relevant objective is ambiguous, context-dependent, delayed, or only partially observable. We argue that many such failures are not merely failures of scale or capability, but failures of objective selection: the system optimizes a locally visible signal while missing which objectives should govern the interaction. We formulate this problem as \emph{contextual multi-objective optimization}. In this setting, systems must consider multiple, context-dependent objectives, such as helpfulness, truthfulness, safety, privacy, calibration, non-manipulation, user preference, reversibility, and stakeholder impact, while determining which objectives are active, which are soft preferences, and which must function as hard or quasi-hard constraints. These examples are not intended as an exhaustive taxonomy: different domains and deployment settings may activate different objective dimensions and different conflict-resolution procedures. Our framework models AI behavior as a context-dependent choice rule over candidate actions, objective estimates, active constraints, stakeholders, uncertainty, and conflict-resolution procedures. We outline an implementation pathway based on decomposed objective representations, context-to-objective routing, hierarchical constraints, deliberative policy reasoning, controlled personalization, tool-use control, diagnostic evaluation, auditing, and post-deployment revision.

Ethical deliberation is often misunderstood as a search for single right or wrong answers, creating difficulties for non-ethically trained personnel who must address ethically laden challenges. We developed EeVA, an agentic-like LLM-based workflow designed to support comparative ethical reflection rather than deliver definitive ethical answers. EeVA was programmed in n8n using three interconnected workflows: starter, worker, and emitter. It evaluated uploaded use cases against 10 ethical frameworks through evaluator and synthesis prompts. Proof-of-concept testing used three published cases from urban mobility, peer-to-peer energy trading, and social-service resource allocation. Across all cases, EeVA produced consistently structured framework-specific evaluations and integrated syntheses. Outputs differentiated between frameworks, identified convergences and divergences, recommended modifications to increase alignment, and highlighted persistent ethical tensions. Syntheses were readable for non-specialists and shifted attention away from simplistic answers toward design conditions, safeguards, and areas where full cross-framework agreement was unlikely. The findings suggest that LLMs can be organised into usable workflows that preserve ethical plurality while helping bridge the communicative gap between ethicists and non-ethically trained personnel. EeVA's value lies not in replacing ethicists or resolving moral disagreement, but in scaffolding structured ethical deliberation. EeVA offers a promising proof of concept for supporting ethical reflection where access to ethics expertise is limited. Further work is needed on reproducibility, human evaluation, user testing, and efficiency before it can be considered a mature tool.

What if the twelve jurors of Sidney Lumet's 12 Angry Men (1957) were not men, but large language models? Would the one juror who disagrees still be able to change everyone's mind? This paper instantiates that scenario as a multi-agent benchmark for LLM deliberation: twelve agents, each conditioned on a film-faithful persona, debate the film's murder case using multi-agent framework. Two models representing opposite ends of the RLHF spectrum are tested: GPT-4o (closed-source, heavy alignment) and Llama-4-Scout (open-weight, lighter alignment), across three conditions (baseline, open-minded prompt, no initial vote), with N = 3 replications per cell (18 runs total). Three findings emerge. (i) Seventeen of eighteen runs end in a hung jury (a state where the jury fails to reach a unanimous verdict); the film's central event, gradual minority-to-majority persuasion, almost never occurs, indicating that anchoring is the dominant failure mode of current LLMs in this setting. (ii) The two models exhibit sharply different internal dynamics: GPT-4o produces a mean of 1.0 vote changes per run across all conditions, while Llama-4-Scout ranges from 2.0 (baseline) to 6.0 (open-minded prompt), and is the only model to reach a NOT_GUILTY verdict (1 of 3 runs in the no-initial-vote condition). The same ``open-minded'' instruction is internalized by Llama and ignored by GPT-4o. (iii) This asymmetry suggests that the intensity of RLHF alignment training, not model capability, is the primary determinant of deliberative flexibility in multi-agent settings. Flexibility, not capability, tracks human deliberation. The work is framed as an exploratory study and discusses implications for jury-of-LLMs evaluation and multi-agent debate.

Conventional algorithmic trading systems are grounded in deterministic heuristics or offline-trained statistical models that cannot adapt to the semantic complexity of rapidly shifting market regimes. This paper introduces AGENTICAITA, an agentic AI framework that replaces the traditional signal then execute paradigm with a fully autonomous deliberative loop in which multiple specialized Large Language Model agents reason, negotiate, and act in concert - without any offline training or human intervention. The framework proposes four architectural contributions: (i) an Adaptive Z-Score Trigger Engine that acts as a cognitive resource allocator, gating LLM inference exclusively on statistically anomalous market conditions; (ii) a Sequential Deliberative Pipeline - the core agentic contribution - in which an Analyst agent, a Risk Manager agent, and an Executor agent form a structured reasoning chain governed by typed JSON contracts and a deterministic hard-gate safety layer; (iii) an Inference Gating Protocol, a mutex-based cognitive resource scheduler that serializes concurrent agent activations and ensures fully reproducible audit trails; and (iv) a Correlation-Break Diversification composite score that operationalizes portfolio-level idiosyncratic signal prioritization within individual agent reasoning. Validated over a five-day autonomous dry-run session under live market conditions, the framework demonstrates operational correctness of the deliberative pipeline, achieving 157 zero-intervention invocations across 76 assets with an 11.5% agentic friction rate that confirms non-trivial inter-agent negotiation. This preliminary proof-of-concept establishes the feasibility of training-free, deterministic safety-constrained multi-agent orchestration in financial decision loops, with statistically robust performance evaluation and execution cost modeling deferred to extended live deployment.

Omnimodal understanding entails a massive, highly redundant search space of cross-modal interactions, demanding focused and deliberative reasoning. Current reasoning paradigms rely on either sequential step-by-step generation or parallel sample-by-sample rollouts, leading to isolated reasoning trajectories. This inability to share promising intermediate paths severely limits exploration efficiency and causes compounding errors in complex audio-visual tasks. To break this bottleneck, we introduce Omni-o3, a novel framework driven by a deep nested deduction policy. By formulating reasoning as a dynamic recursive search, Omni-o3 inherently shares reasoning prefixes across branches, enabling the iterative execution of four atomic cognitive actions: expansion, selection, simulation, and backpropagation. To empower this framework, we propose a robust two-stage training paradigm: (1) cold-start supervised fine-tuning on 101K high-quality, long-chain trajectories distilled from 3.5M diverse omnimodal samples, enabling necessary recursive search patterns; and (2) nested group rollout-driven exploratory reinforcement learning on 18K complex multi-turn samples, explicitly guided by a novel multi-step reward model to stimulate deep nested reasoning. Extensive experiments demonstrate that Omni-o3 achieves competitive performance across 11 benchmarks, unlocking advanced capabilities in comprehensive audio-visual, visual-centric, and audio-centric reasoning tasks.

A primary goal of online deliberation platforms is to identify ideas that are broadly agreeable to a community of users through their expressed preferences. Yet, consensus elicitation should ideally extend beyond the specific statements provided by users and should incorporate the relative salience of particular topics. We address this issue by modelling consensus as an interval in a one-dimensional opinion space derived from potentially high-dimensional data via embedding and dimensionality reduction. We define an objective that maximizes expected agreement within a hypothesis interval where the expectation is over an underlying distribution of issues, implicitly taking into account their salience. We propose an efficient Empirical Risk Minimization (ERM) algorithm and establish PAC-learning guarantees. Our initial experiments demonstrate the performance of our algorithm and examine more efficient approaches to identifying optimal consensus regions. We find that through selectively querying users on an existing sample of statements, we can reduce the number of queries needed to a practical number.

Understanding the intricate dynamics of online discourse depends on large-scale deliberation data, a resource that remains scarce across interactive web platforms due to restrictive accessibility policies, ethical concerns and inconsistent data quality. In this paper, we propose Chorus, an agentic framework, which orchestrates LLM-powered actors with behaviorally consistent personas to generate realistic deliberation discussions. Each actor is governed by an autonomous agent equipped with memory of the evolving discussion, while participation timing is governed by a principled Poisson process-based temporal model, which approximates the heterogeneous engagement patterns of real users. The framework is further supported by structured tool usage, enabling actors to access external resources and facilitating integration with interactive web platforms. The framework was deployed on the \textsc{Deliberate} platform and evaluated by 30 expert participants across three dimensions: content realism, discussion coherence and analytical utility, confirming Chorus as a practical tool for generating high-quality deliberation data suitable for online discourse analysis

The pursuit of truth is central to democratic deliberation and governance, yet political discourse reflects varying epistemic orientations, ranging from evidence-based reasoning grounded in verifiable information to intuition-based reasoning rooted in beliefs and subjective interpretation. We introduce a scalable approach to measure epistemic orientation using the Evidence--Minus--Intuition (EMI) score, derived from large language model (LLM) ratings and embedding-based semantic similarity. Applying this approach to 15 million parliamentary speech segments spanning 1946 to 2025 across seven countries, we examine temporal patterns in discourse and its association with deliberative democracy and governance. We find that EMI is positively associated with deliberative democracy within countries over time, with consistent relationships in both contemporaneous and lagged analyses. EMI is also positively associated with the transparency and predictable implementation of laws as a dimension of governance. These findings suggest that the epistemic nature of political discourse is crucial for both the quality of democracy and governance.

Verifiers have been demonstrated to enhance LLM reasoning via test-time scaling (TTS). Yet, they face significant challenges in complex domains. Error propagation from incorrect intermediate reasoning can lead to false positives for seemingly plausible solutions, while lacking external grounding makes verifiers unreliable on computation or knowledge-intensive tasks. To address these challenges, we propose Agentic Verifier, a framework that transforms reward modeling into a multi-turn, tool-augmented deliberative process. We introduce complementary forward and backward agents: one traces solutions from premises to conclusions, while the other re-checks conclusions against their underlying premises. This bidirectional process enables a comprehensive, reliable, and interpretable assessment of solutions. To facilitate practical deployment, we propose AgentV-RL. Through proactive exploration and reinforcement learning, the verifier autonomously interleaves tool-use with internal reasoning. Extensive experiments show that Agentic Verifier yields consistent performance gains under both parallel and sequential TTS. Notably, our 4B variant surpasses state-of-the-art ORMs by 25.2%, positioning it as a promising paradigm for agentic reward modeling.

Measuring the quality of public deliberation requires evaluating not only civility or argument structure, but also the informational progress of a conversation. We introduce a framework for Conversational Information Gain (CIG) that evaluates each utterance in terms of how it advances collective understanding of the target topic. To operationalize CIG, we model an evolving semantic memory of the discussion: the system extracts atomic claims from utterances and incrementally consolidates them into a structured memory state. Using this memory, we score each utterance along three interpretable dimensions: Novelty, Relevance, and Implication Scope. We annotate 80 segments from two moderated deliberative settings (TV debates and community discussions) with these dimensions and show that memory-derived dynamics (e.g., the number of claim updates) correlate more strongly with human-perceived CIG than traditional heuristics such as utterance length or TF--IDF. We develop effective LLM-based CIG predictors paving the way for information-focused conversation quality analysis in dialogues and deliberative success.

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in sensitive everyday contexts -- offering personal advice, mental health support, and moral guidance -- understanding their behavior in navigating complex moral reasoning is essential. Most evaluations study this sociotechnical alignment through single-turn prompts, but it is unclear if these findings extend to multi-turn settings, and even less clear how they depend on the interaction protocols used to coordinate agentic systems. We address this gap using LLM debate to examine deliberative dynamics and value alignment in multi-turn settings by prompting subsets of three models (GPT-4.1, Claude 3.7 Sonnet, and Gemini 2.0 Flash) to collectively assign blame in 1,000 everyday dilemmas from Reddit's ``Am I the Asshole'' community. To test order effects and assess verdict revision, we use both synchronous (parallel responses) and round-robin (sequential responses) deliberation structures, mirroring how multi-agent systems are increasingly orchestrated in practice. Our findings show striking behavioral differences. In the synchronous setting, GPT-4.1 showed strong inertia (0.6-3.1% revision rates) while Claude 3.7 Sonnet and Gemini 2.0 Flash were far more flexible (28-41% revision rates). Value patterns also diverged: GPT-4.1 emphasized personal autonomy and direct communication (relative to its deliberation partners), while Claude 3.7 Sonnet and Gemini 2.0 Flash prioritized empathetic dialogue. We further find that deliberation format had a strong impact on model behavior: GPT-4.1 and Gemini 2.0 Flash stood out as highly conforming relative to Claude 3.7 Sonnet, with their verdict behavior strongly shaped by order effects. We provide additional results on open-source models (DeepSeek-V3.2 and Llama 3.1).

To scale up collective decision-making, participatory democracy platforms such as Polis and Remesh enable online deliberation among thousands of participants. However, at this scale, participants cannot review every opinion submitted by others, producing highly sparse voting data that misrepresent patterns of consensus, conflict, and minority support. Platforms therefore increasingly rely on Preference Inference (PI) models to predict missing votes. Yet this automation is not neutral: inferred preferences can artificially amplify, suppress, or reorder existing patterns of support, ultimately reshaping how the outcomes of a deliberation are interpreted. More generally, we lack a systematic understanding of how existing PI methods affect the collective preference landscape. To address this gap, we benchmark several existing PI approaches in this context. Moving beyond conventional user-centric evaluations centered on the accuracy of individual predictions, we introduce a collective-centric evaluation framework that measures whether inferred votes preserve salient properties of the broader preference landscape. We further contribute the largest multilingual dataset of its kind: four consultations spanning over 90k participants, 1M votes, and 22 languages. Our experiments show that models with comparable predictive accuracy can differ substantially in the degree to which they preserve the collective structure. These results demonstrate that accuracy alone is insufficient for evaluating PI in democratic settings. By contributing a novel comprehensive and collective-centric evaluation benchmark for the task of PI, this work aims to support the development of AI systems that scale deliberation without compromising the integrity of its democratic outcomes.