跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail

论文库

检索计算机领域论文,按研究方向、作者或关键词筛选。

部分采集异常
正在读取账号与研究记录…

全站更新概况

+0新增论文
+0其中 AI 相关
+2已有论文修订
+100新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:2026-11-15 07:45 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-14 15:09各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-14 08:38 — 2026-11-15 08:38(北京时间) · 点击数字查看对应简报;AI 相关包含在新增论文内。

最近完成检查:2026-11-15 07:45最近发现新增版本:2026-11-14 15:09库内论文最新更新时间:2026-11-13 02:59

每分钟刷新已保存的数据。空检查不代表采集异常;新收录可能包含历史论文。AI 导读按新增版本计数。

23,348 已收录论文19,580 AI 相关6,729 有修订112 HF 社区发现

浏览论文库

时间范围跟随排序:版本更新、本站收录或首次发表。最新收录可能包含历史论文。部分信源异常,查看状态 →

找到 2 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序上轮扫描起点 2026-11-15 07:44(北京时间)
新论文 · v1arXiv:2611.16028

Scaling public input on AI policy with pluralistic agents

Jacy Reese Anthis, Ken Burke, David Madras, Crystal Qian, Meredith Ringel Morris, Logan Cross, Caroline Pantofaru, Utsav Prabhu

原文摘要

AI is being deployed across a vast range of application domains, cultural environments, and human stakeholders. Safe and responsible AI development requires continuously accounting for diverse perspectives. We develop and test pluralistic agents, AI agent representatives that deliberate on behalf of individuals to align AI systems with diverse human perspectives. Pluralistic agents could help people contribute to many more discussions than they could directly participate in, on technical topics that would require training, and on policy choices that rely on private information that corporations and governments cannot readily share. Our experiments identify opportunities, risks, and perceptions of pluralistic agents. Agents were able to reliably shift policies in the direction of their represented persona's preferences, but the extent of each agent's influence was sensitive to the instructions from its persona, such as having more influence when instructed to be more verbose or less cooperative. This suggests that influence in AI-assisted deliberation could vary based on how participants prompt their agents and how the system is designed. In a preregistered study, 746 humans participated in the pluralistic agents process. Participants viewed pluralistic agents as useful and fair, preferring agents over the baseline of providing input to a single AI reasoning model. Most participants preferred participating themselves over either pluralistic agents or the baseline, but pluralistic agents recovered 68% of the baseline-direct gap in reported satisfaction and 82% in fairness. Because pluralistic agents can be used in many real-world contexts where direct discussion is not, they could be a promising tool to scale AI safety policy development. We encourage cautious exploration of this method, playing to its strengths as an amplifier of human input rather than a replacement.

cs.CY · cs.AI · cs.CL · cs.LG

新论文 · v1arXiv:2610.37862

Improving Group Deliberation through AI-Guided Self-Reflection

Haiwen Li, Crystal Qian, Ben Usman, Stephanie Chan, Michiel Bakker, Srivignesh Rajendran, Avneesh Sud, Thomas Leung 等 12 位作者

原文摘要

As AI systems increasingly mediate human communication, identifying conditions under which they augment collective sense-making is a critical challenge. Through a randomized experiment (N=1,173 U.S. participants across 391 small-group deliberations), we investigate whether AI-guided self-reflection improves subsequent deliberative discourse. We show that engaging with a non-directive AI chatbot instructed to structure self-reflection prior to group deliberation yields significantly higher deliberation quality (measured by the Discourse Quality Index, DQI) compared to a baseline of no self-reflection (Cohen's d=0.31) and a condition of unassisted self-reflection (d=0.27), and the positive impact is most pronounced in groups with disagreement. This improvement may be driven by more sophisticated argument justifications, greater consensus-building effort, and increased respect for counterarguments. Furthermore, after self-reflection, participants in the AI condition reported higher empathy toward dissenting peers and a deeper understanding of opposing reasoning. Beyond observed behavior, our findings are empirically relevant to open debates between political philosophy and psychology surrounding self-reflection, demonstrating that interactive AI could transform solitary thinking into productive internal reflection. Together, these results demonstrate that even simple AI-based reflective scaffolds can foster more productive group dynamics, opening new avenues for leveraging AI to augment collective intelligence.

cs.HC · cs.CY