Socially Grounded Agentic AI: Coordinating Plural Perspectives through Social Theory

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.03910v1
• Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2026 16:37:09 GMT
• Title: Socially Grounded Agentic AI: Coordinating Plural Perspectives through Social Theory
• Abstract summary: We show how perspectives can be understood as structured by roles, shaped through interaction, and distributed across fields of power and expertise.<n>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.
• Score: 4.253029474101735
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: 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.

Related papers

• From Holistic Evaluation to Structured Criteria: Rubrics Across the Evolving LLM Landscape [79.30826980815927]
  rubrics are explicit criteria sets that transform complex quality judgments into structured and actionable standards.<n>We systematically organize existing rubric designs, examine their construction and optimization, and analyze their role across evaluation and training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-07T13:34:55Z)
• Relative Principals, Pluralistic Alignment, and the Structural Value Alignment Problem [0.20305676256390934]
  I argue that the problem is better understood as a structural question about governance.<n>This paper reconceptualises misalignment as arising along three axes: objectives, information, and principals.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-22T17:36:52Z)
• A Survey of Reasoning in Autonomous Driving Systems: Open Challenges and Emerging Paradigms [49.66022971508878]
  We argue that reasoning should be elevated from a modular component to the system's cognitive core.<n>We derive and systematize seven core reasoning challenges, such as the responsiveness-reasoning trade-off and social-game reasoning.<n>We identify a fundamental and unresolved tension between the high-latency, deliberative nature of LLM-based reasoning and the millisecond-scale, safety-critical demands of vehicle control.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-11T07:40:53Z)
• Position: General Alignment Has Hit a Ceiling; Edge Alignment Must Be Taken Seriously [51.03213216886717]
  We take the position that the dominant paradigm of General Alignment reaches a structural ceiling in settings with conflicting values.<n>We introduce Edge Alignment as a distinct approach in which systems preserve multi dimensional value structure.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-23T16:51:43Z)
• The Value of Disagreement in AI Design, Evaluation, and Alignment [0.0]
  Disagreements are widespread across the design, evaluation, and alignment pipelines of AI systems.<n>Standard practices in AI development often obscure or eliminate disagreement, resulting in an engineered homogenization.<n>We develop a normative framework to guide practical reasoning about disagreement in the AI lifecycle.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-12T17:22:30Z)
• A Moral Imperative: The Need for Continual Superalignment of Large Language Models [1.0499611180329806]
  Superalignment is a theoretical framework that aspires to ensure that superintelligent AI systems act in accordance with human values and goals. This paper examines the challenges associated with achieving life-long superalignment in AI systems, particularly large language models (LLMs)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-13T05:44:50Z)
• Hierarchical Invariance for Robust and Interpretable Vision Tasks at Larger Scales [54.78115855552886]
  We show how to construct over-complete invariants with a Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN)-like hierarchical architecture. With the over-completeness, discriminative features w.r.t. the task can be adaptively formed in a Neural Architecture Search (NAS)-like manner. For robust and interpretable vision tasks at larger scales, hierarchical invariant representation can be considered as an effective alternative to traditional CNN and invariants.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-23T16:50:07Z)
• Training Socially Aligned Language Models on Simulated Social Interactions [99.39979111807388]
  Social alignment in AI systems aims to ensure that these models behave according to established societal values. Current language models (LMs) are trained to rigidly replicate their training corpus in isolation. This work presents a novel training paradigm that permits LMs to learn from simulated social interactions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-26T14:17:36Z)
• ACROCPoLis: A Descriptive Framework for Making Sense of Fairness [6.4686347616068005]
  We propose the ACROCPoLis framework to represent allocation processes with a modeling emphasis on fairness aspects. The framework provides a shared vocabulary in which the factors relevant to fairness assessments for different situations and procedures are made explicit.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-19T21:14:57Z)
• Towards a multi-stakeholder value-based assessment framework for algorithmic systems [76.79703106646967]
  We develop a value-based assessment framework that visualizes closeness and tensions between values. We give guidelines on how to operationalize them, while opening up the evaluation and deliberation process to a wide range of stakeholders.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-09T19:28:32Z)

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.