Accountable Human-AI Deliberation with LLMs: Scaling Collective Intelligence through Symbiotic Scaffolding

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.26940v1
• Date: Tue, 26 May 2026 12:31:37 GMT
• Title: Accountable Human-AI Deliberation with LLMs: Scaling Collective Intelligence through Symbiotic Scaffolding
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) can support democratic deliberation at scales previously constrained by turn-taking and facilitation bandwidth.<n>We propose a symbiotic human-AI framework organized into three layers: observation and diversity amplification, facilitation with clause-level mediation, and human primacy for ratification.
• Score: 0.7734073750595959
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: 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.

Related papers

• The Deliberative Deficit: An Empirical Critique of LLMs in Democratic Discourse [0.0]
  Deliberative Reason Index (DRI) developed in political science validated across citizen assemblies.<n>Group-level reasoning on non-verifiable problems can't be fully inferred from verifiable-task benchmarks.<n>DRI is a tool for evaluating reliable group-level reasoning on pluralistic, non-verifiable problems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-10T19:57:19Z)
• ActTraitBench: Quantifying the Knowledge-Decision Gap in Large Language Models via Human-Grounded Behavioral Validation [8.82034003345674]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) can convincingly simulate personas in explicit self-reports, but often deviate in implicit behavioral decisions.<n>Existing benchmarks struggle to measure this asymmetry due to limited construct validity, multi-dimensional entanglement, and distributional biases.<n>We propose ActTraitBench, a human-grounded evaluation framework for measuring personality consistency in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-28T11:40:35Z)
• Position: agentic AI orchestration should be Bayes-consistent [92.04373485710285]
  This paper argues that coherent decision-making requires Bayesian principles at the orchestration level of the agentic system.<n>It provides examples and design patterns to illustrate how beliefs and utility-aware policies can improve agentic AI orchestration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-01T15:43:43Z)
• LLM Performance Predictors: Learning When to Escalate in Hybrid Human-AI Moderation Systems [5.7001352660257005]
  We propose a framework for supervised uncertainty quantification in content moderation systems.<n>We show that our method enables cost-aware selective classification in real-world human-AI.<n>This work establishes a principled framework for uncertainty-aware, scalable and responsible human-AI moderation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-11T17:46:49Z)
• Query-Document Dense Vectors for LLM Relevance Judgment Bias Analysis [4.719505127252616]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have been used as relevance assessors for Information Retrieval (IR) evaluation collection creation.<n>We aim to understand if LLMs make systematic mistakes when judging relevance, rather than just understanding how good they are on average.<n>We introduce a clustering-based framework that embeds query-document (Q-D) pairs into a joint semantic space.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-05T03:02:33Z)
• Evaluating LLM-Contaminated Crowdsourcing Data Without Ground Truth [18.069595635842557]
  Large language models (LLMs) by crowdsourcing workers pose a challenge to datasets intended to reflect human input.<n>We propose a training-free scoring mechanism with theoretical guarantees under a crowdsourcing model that accounts for LLM collusion.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-08T04:38:39Z)
• Silence is Not Consensus: Disrupting Agreement Bias in Multi-Agent LLMs via Catfish Agent for Clinical Decision Making [80.94208848596215]
  We present a new concept called Catfish Agent, a role-specialized LLM designed to inject structured dissent and counter silent agreement.<n>Inspired by the catfish effect'' in organizational psychology, the Catfish Agent is designed to challenge emerging consensus to stimulate deeper reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-27T17:59:50Z)
• Fairness Mediator: Neutralize Stereotype Associations to Mitigate Bias in Large Language Models [66.5536396328527]
  LLMs inadvertently absorb spurious correlations from training data, leading to stereotype associations between biased concepts and specific social groups.<n>We propose Fairness Mediator (FairMed), a bias mitigation framework that neutralizes stereotype associations.<n>Our framework comprises two main components: a stereotype association prober and an adversarial debiasing neutralizer.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-10T14:23:06Z)
• LlaMADRS: Prompting Large Language Models for Interview-Based Depression Assessment [75.44934940580112]
  This study introduces LlaMADRS, a novel framework leveraging open-source Large Language Models (LLMs) to automate depression severity assessment.<n>We employ a zero-shot prompting strategy with carefully designed cues to guide the model in interpreting and scoring transcribed clinical interviews.<n>Our approach, tested on 236 real-world interviews, demonstrates strong correlations with clinician assessments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-07T08:49:04Z)
• Attribute Controlled Fine-tuning for Large Language Models: A Case Study on Detoxification [76.14641982122696]
  We propose a constraint learning schema for fine-tuning Large Language Models (LLMs) with attribute control. We show that our approach leads to an LLM that produces fewer inappropriate responses while achieving competitive performance on benchmarks and a toxicity detection task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-07T23:38:58Z)
• Aligning with Logic: Measuring, Evaluating and Improving Logical Preference Consistency in Large Language Models [31.558429029429863]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are expected to be predictable and trustworthy to support reliable decision-making systems.<n>This work examines logical preference consistency as a foundational requirement for building more dependable LLM systems.<n>We show that improving consistency leads to better performance in LLM-driven logic-based algorithms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-03T04:34:04Z)
• CLOMO: Counterfactual Logical Modification with Large Language Models [109.60793869938534]
  We introduce a novel task, Counterfactual Logical Modification (CLOMO), and a high-quality human-annotated benchmark. In this task, LLMs must adeptly alter a given argumentative text to uphold a predetermined logical relationship. We propose an innovative evaluation metric, the Self-Evaluation Score (SES), to directly evaluate the natural language output of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-29T08:29:54Z)

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.