Algorithmic Approaches to Opinion Selection for Online Deliberation: A Comparative Study

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.15439v1
• Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2026 09:03:26 GMT
• Title: Algorithmic Approaches to Opinion Selection for Online Deliberation: A Comparative Study
• Authors: Salim Hafid, Manon Berriche, Jean-Philippe Cointet,
• Abstract summary: In online deliberation platforms, algorithmic selection is increasingly used to automate the selection process.<n>It remains unclear how each approach influences desired democratic criteria such as proportional representation.<n>We propose a novel algorithm that incorporates both diversity and a balanced notion of representation in the selection strategy.
• Score: 1.5267938856942276
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: During deliberation processes, mediators and facilitators typically need to select a small and representative set of opinions later used to produce digestible reports for stakeholders. In online deliberation platforms, algorithmic selection is increasingly used to automate this process. However, such automation is not without consequences. For instance, enforcing consensus-seeking algorithmic strategies can imply ignoring or flattening conflicting preferences, which may lead to erasing minority voices and reducing content diversity. More generally, across the variety of existing selection strategies (e.g., consensus, diversity), it remains unclear how each approach influences desired democratic criteria such as proportional representation. To address this gap, we benchmark several algorithmic approaches in this context. We also build on social choice theory to propose a novel algorithm that incorporates both diversity and a balanced notion of representation in the selection strategy. We find empirically that while no single strategy dominates across all democratic desiderata, our social-choice-inspired selection rule achieves the strongest trade-off between proportional representation and diversity.

Related papers

• Strategic Costs of Perceived Bias in Fair Selection [25.24305795734348]
  Meritocratic systems aim to impartially reward skill and effort.<n> persistent disparities across race, gender, and class challenge this ideal.<n>We develop a game-theoretic model in which candidates from different socioeconomic groups differ in perceived post-selection value.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-23T14:38:05Z)
• What Voting Rules Actually Do: A Data-Driven Analysis of Multi-Winner Voting [5.880273374889066]
  We propose a data-driven framework to evaluate how frequently voting rules violate axioms across diverse preference distributions.<n>We show that neural networks, acting as voting rules, can outperform traditional rules in minimizing axiom violations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-08T16:54:09Z)
• EMO-Debias: Benchmarking Gender Debiasing Techniques in Multi-Label Speech Emotion Recognition [49.27067541740956]
  EMO-Debias is a large-scale comparison of 13 debiasing methods applied to multi-label SER.<n>Our study encompasses techniques from pre-processing, regularization, adversarial learning, biased learners, and distributionally robust optimization.<n>Our analysis quantifies the trade-offs between fairness and accuracy, identifying which approaches consistently reduce gender performance gaps.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-05T05:48:31Z)
• Alternates, Assemble! Selecting Optimal Alternates for Citizens' Assemblies [1.5624421399300306]
  Citizens' assemblies are an influential form of deliberative democracy, where randomly selected people discuss policy questions.<n> dropouts are replaced by preselected alternates, but existing methods do not address how to choose these alternates.<n>We introduce an optimization framework for alternate selection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-02T17:48:33Z)
• Policy Aggregation [21.21314301021803]
  We consider the challenge of AI value alignment with multiple individuals with different reward functions and optimal policies in an underlying Markov decision process. We formalize this problem as one of policy aggregation, where the goal is to identify a desirable collective policy. Key insight is that social choice methods can be reinterpreted by identifying ordinal preferences with volumes of subsets of the state-action occupancy polytope.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-06T04:19:50Z)
• Aligning AI with Public Values: Deliberation and Decision-Making for Governing Multimodal LLMs in Political Video Analysis [48.14390493099495]
  How AI models should deal with political topics has been discussed, but it remains challenging and requires better governance.<n>This paper examines the governance of large language models through individual and collective deliberation, focusing on politically sensitive videos.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-15T03:17:38Z)
• Representation Bias in Political Sample Simulations with Large Language Models [54.48283690603358]
  This study seeks to identify and quantify biases in simulating political samples with Large Language Models. Using the GPT-3.5-Turbo model, we leverage data from the American National Election Studies, German Longitudinal Election Study, Zuobiao dataset, and China Family Panel Studies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-16T05:52:26Z)
• Tackling Diverse Minorities in Imbalanced Classification [80.78227787608714]
  Imbalanced datasets are commonly observed in various real-world applications, presenting significant challenges in training classifiers. We propose generating synthetic samples iteratively by mixing data samples from both minority and majority classes. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed framework through extensive experiments conducted on seven publicly available benchmark datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-28T18:48:34Z)
• Fairness in Selection Problems with Strategic Candidates [9.4148805532663]
  We study how the strategic aspect affects fairness in selection problems. A population of rational candidates compete by choosing an effort level to increase their quality. We characterize the (unique) equilibrium of this game in the different parameters' regimes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-24T17:03:32Z)
• Modularity in Reinforcement Learning via Algorithmic Independence in Credit Assignment [79.5678820246642]
  We show that certain action-value methods are more sample efficient than policy-gradient methods on transfer problems that require only sparse changes to a sequence of previously optimal decisions. We generalize the recently proposed societal decision-making framework as a more granular formalism than the Markov decision process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-28T21:29:13Z)
• Multi-Stage Decentralized Matching Markets: Uncertain Preferences and Strategic Behaviors [91.3755431537592]
  This article develops a framework for learning optimal strategies in real-world matching markets. We show that there exists a welfare-versus-fairness trade-off that is characterized by the uncertainty level of acceptance. We prove that participants can be better off with multi-stage matching compared to single-stage matching.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-13T19:25:52Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.