Finding Common Ground in a Sea of Alternatives

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.16751v1
• Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2026 16:28:37 GMT
• Title: Finding Common Ground in a Sea of Alternatives
• Abstract summary: We study the problem of selecting a statement that finds common ground across diverse population preferences.<n>Generative AI is uniquely suited for this task because it can access a practically infinite set of statements.<n>We propose a formal model for finding common ground in the infinite alternative setting based on the proportional veto core from social choice.
• Score: 22.60243910902928
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: We study the problem of selecting a statement that finds common ground across diverse population preferences. Generative AI is uniquely suited for this task because it can access a practically infinite set of statements, but AI systems like the Habermas machine leave the choice of generated statement to a voting rule. What it means for this rule to find common ground, however, is not well-defined. In this work, we propose a formal model for finding common ground in the infinite alternative setting based on the proportional veto core from social choice. To provide guarantees relative to these infinitely many alternatives and a large population, we wish to satisfy a notion of proportional veto core using only query access to the unknown distribution of alternatives and voters. We design an efficient sampling-based algorithm that returns an alternative in the (approximate) proportional veto core with high probability and prove matching lower bounds, which show that no algorithm can do the same using fewer queries. On a synthetic dataset of preferences over text, we confirm the effectiveness of our sampling-based algorithm and compare other social choice methods as well as LLM-based methods in terms of how reliably they produce statements in the proportional veto core.

Related papers

• Aggregate Disambiguation Systems [0.0]
  Given a task and a candidate solution, each evaluator casts a binary vote on whether the solution should be accepted.<n>The target is protocol relative to an explicitly declared evaluator reference, not semantic truth.<n>We use finite samples to estimate how often a finite panel reaches the same decision as the declared evaluator population.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-31T13:55:14Z)
• Efficient Test-Time Inference via Deterministic Exploration of Truncated Decoding Trees [68.04613115686509]
  Self-consistency boosts inference-time performance by sampling multiple reasoning traces in parallel and voting.<n>We propose Distinct Leafion (DLE), a deterministic decoding method that treats truncated sampling as a pruned tree and systematically enumerates distinct leaves instead of sampling with replacement.<n>DLE explores higher-quality reasoning traces, yielding better performance on math, coding, and general reasoning tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-22T12:42:03Z)
• Evaluation of Multi- and Single-objective Learning Algorithms for Imbalanced Data [0.0]
  Machine learning tasks aim to find models that work well not for a single, but for a group of criteria, often opposing ones.<n>One solution is to propose an aggregate learning criterion and reduce the multi-objective learning task to a single-criteria optimization problem.<n>This article proposes a new, reliable way of evaluating algorithms based on multi-objective algorithms with methods that return single solutions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-15T12:54:17Z)
• Reasoning Planning for Language Models [23.519351730129426]
  We introduce EPIC, an Ensemble Planning with Contrastive learning framework.<n>EPIC learns a shared representation space that captures both model reasoning abilities and query-method compatibility.<n> Experiments on diverse mathematical reasoning tasks show that EPIC consistently selects optimal reasoning methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-01T11:51:53Z)
• Optimized Distortion in Linear Social Choice [28.227695590829086]
  We study distortion of linear social choice for deterministic and randomized voting rules.<n>We introduce poly-time instance-optimal algorithms for minimizing distortion given a collection of candidates and votes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-22T20:42:49Z)
• A Principled Approach to Randomized Selection under Uncertainty: Applications to Peer Review and Grant Funding [61.86327960322782]
  We propose a principled framework for randomized decision-making based on interval estimates of the quality of each item.<n>We introduce MERIT, an optimization-based method that maximizes the worst-case expected number of top candidates selected.<n>We prove that MERIT satisfies desirable axiomatic properties not guaranteed by existing approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-23T19:59:30Z)
• 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)
• Provable Scaling Laws for the Test-Time Compute of Large Language Models [84.00141420901038]
  We propose two algorithms that enjoy provable scaling laws for the test-time compute of large language models.<n>One is a two-stage knockout-style algorithm, where each candidate is evaluated by its average win rate against multiple opponents.<n>The other is a two-stage league-style algorithm, where each candidate is evaluated by its average win rate against multiple opponents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-29T05:29:47Z)
• Efficient Weighting Schemes for Auditing Instant-Runoff Voting Elections [57.67176250198289]
  AWAIRE involves adaptively weighted averages of test statistics, essentially "learning" an effective set of hypotheses to test. We explore schemes and settings more extensively, to identify and recommend efficient choices for practice. A limitation of the current AWAIRE implementation is its restriction to a small number of candidates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-18T10:13:01Z)
• Heuristic Algorithms for the Approximation of Mutual Coherence [0.22099217573031676]
  In Germany, this system helps voters to find candidates that are the closest to their political preferences. The exact iteration of mutual coherence is highly time-consuming due to the iteration over all subsets of an opinion. This work is the first study to accelerate this computation. The accuracy is precise enough to be used in Wahl-O-Mat-like systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-04T10:47:02Z)
• Adaptive Sampling for Heterogeneous Rank Aggregation from Noisy Pairwise Comparisons [85.5955376526419]
  In rank aggregation problems, users exhibit various accuracy levels when comparing pairs of items. We propose an elimination-based active sampling strategy, which estimates the ranking of items via noisy pairwise comparisons. We prove that our algorithm can return the true ranking of items with high probability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-08T13:51:55Z)
• Adaptive Combinatorial Allocation [77.86290991564829]
  We consider settings where an allocation has to be chosen repeatedly, returns are unknown but can be learned, and decisions are subject to constraints. Our model covers two-sided and one-sided matching, even with complex constraints.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-04T15:02:59Z)

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.