Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 7 minor 33 references

A Dynamic Approach to Collaborative Document Writing (Full Version)

T0 review · 2 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read In a dynamic model of collaborative text, no aggregation rule can both maximize social welfare and guarantee that the document eventually stops changing.

desk verdict A sound impossibility theorem plus a family of rules that are promising in simulations, but the simulation 'stability' metric does not measure the paper's own formal stability, so the convergence claims are overstated. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.17489 v2 pith:NLSZTHST submitted 2025-08-24 cs.GT

Avital Finanser , Nimrod Talmon This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.GT MSC 91B1291B14
keywords collaborativedocumentwritingdynamicvotingsocialwelfarestabilityconsensus-conditionedrulesrelativemajorityagent-basedsimulationlargelanguagemodels
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish a fundamental trade-off at the heart of any system where a community co-writes a document by proposing paragraphs and voting on each other's suggestions. It proves that no aggregation rule can simultaneously maximize the community's additive satisfaction with the final text and guarantee that the text eventually stops changing. What can be achieved instead, the paper argues, is a family of consensus-conditioned rules whose strictness grows over time, so a designer can pick a point on the stability-versus-welfare frontier. Using agent-based simulations, including agents modeled by large language models, it shows these tunable rules converge quickly to documents with high satisfaction.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the relative majority rule and the Consensus-Conditioned Rule (CCR) framework. A relative majority rule weighs each agent's approval or disapproval by $1/N_a$, the inverse of the number of paragraphs that agent voted on, and includes a paragraph exactly when the weighted approvals exceed the weighted disapprovals; Theorem 1 establishes that this class is exactly the set of social-welfare maximizers. A CCR assigns each paragraph a consensus score via a scoring function $CSF(p,T)$ and includes paragraphs whose score clears a threshold $x$. The dynamic subfamily used to escape the impossibility uses a smoothing function, here exponential, $F^{\mathrm{exp}}_\alpha(x,t) = x\,e^{-t\alpha(1-x)}$, so that as events accumulate the effective score of a paragraph decays unless it has strong support; this is what lets the rule asymptotically stabilize while remaining amendable.

What would settle it

Concrete check: in an instance with two agents and one paragraph, let the event sequence be $(a_1,p,+1), (a_2,p,+1), (a_1,p,-1), (a_2,p,-1)$. The relative majority rule includes $p$ after event 2 and excludes it after event 4, reproducing the instability of Observation 1; a rule claimed to be both stable and welfare-maximizing must instead return a constant document on this sequence while also beating the relative majority outcome in satisfaction. Alternatively, in the LLM simulation, record the document-update count under CCR[RAPS,0.5] with 40 agents and 500 events: Observation 1 predicts updates keep occurring whenever the final vote balance crosses the threshold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is an impossibility: under the satisfaction model where each agent's welfare is the fraction of paragraphs they voted on that match their last vote, a rule maximizes social welfare if and only if it is a relative majority rule—include a paragraph when the activity-weighted approvals exceed the activity-weighted disapprovals (Theorem 1). But every such rule is unstable: a paragraph already in the document can be flipped by enough additional opposing votes, so no extension of the event list can guarantee the output never changes again (Observation 1). Together these yield the paper's headline theorem, Corollary 1: no rule is both social-welfare-maximizing and stable. The paper then introduces Consensus-Conditioned Rules, which score paragraphs and include those above a threshold, and shows through simulations that smooth versions—where the required score rises gradually via exponential decay—offer a tunable Pareto trade-off between satisfaction and stability.

Load-bearing premise

The whole impossibility rests on measuring satisfaction as the fraction of paragraphs each agent voted on that end up matching that agent's last vote; if real preferences depend on how paragraphs fit together, on document order, or on how much the agent cares, the trade-off theorem does not apply.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every practical collaborative-writing mechanism must sacrifice either welfare optimality or the guarantee of eventual stability; the choice is a design parameter, not an implementation bug.
  • The relative majority rule, with per-agent normalization by voting activity, is the only welfare-optimal rule family, so any attempt to improve stability by changing the aggregation rule necessarily moves away from welfare optimality.
  • Smooth consensus-conditioned rules, such as exponential smoothing on event count, provide a monotone dial between the two goals: higher $\alpha$ stabilizes faster, lower $\alpha$ preserves more satisfaction.
  • Harsh rules that freeze the document after a fixed number of events are stable but vulnerable to adversarial event flooding, so they fit settings like budgeting deadlines rather than ongoing constitution drafting.
  • In simulations, larger and more diverse communities push the Pareto frontier outward: more agents yield higher achievable satisfaction but make stability harder.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper: the impossibility depends on additive, paragraph-separable satisfaction; if real writers care about how paragraphs interact or about document order, a rule that is both stable and welfare-maximizing over those richer preferences may exist, and Theorem 1 would not transfer.
  • Beyond the paper: the paper's stability notion is existential—there exists some continuation that stabilizes. A stricter notion requiring stabilization under every fair scheduler would be even harder to satisfy; testing smooth rules under adversarial scheduling would reveal how much of the reported convergence is scheduler luck.
  • Beyond the paper: the exponential smoothing rule gives late-arriving voters less influence, so a testable implication is that postponing votes can lock in an early document; measuring the degree of first-mover advantage in the LLM simulations would quantify this cost.
  • Beyond the paper: the same CCR machinery could be applied to ordered documents by adding a score for paragraph position, turning the current unordered-set model into a testbed for constitution drafting with structural constraints.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a formal model of collaborative document writing in which agents propose paragraphs and vote on existing ones, and an aggregation rule maps the event list to a set of included paragraphs. The central theoretical results are: (i) a rule maximizes the paper's additive satisfaction-based social welfare objective if and only if it is a relative majority (RM) rule (Theorem 1); (ii) no RM rule satisfies the paper's eventual lock-in notion of stability (Observation 1); hence no rule is simultaneously SWM and stable (Corollary 1); and (iii) no versatile static consensus-conditioned rule (CCR) is stable (Theorem 2). The paper then proposes harsh and smooth dynamic CCRs and reports agent-based simulations, including LLM-driven agents, in which rules are compared on a normalized stability proxy (the fraction of event steps with no document update) and normalized community satisfaction. The simulations are used to claim that smooth rules achieve a good balance between the two goals and that the process rapidly converges to a high-welfare text.

Significance. The theoretical part is clean and correct as far as it goes. The characterization of SWM rules, the impossibility corollary, and the proof that versatile static CCRs are unstable are nontrivial and well suited to a social-choice audience. Appendix C's concrete example of a versatile, stable non-static CCR is a nice complement to Theorem 2, and Appendix D verifies the monotonicity and amendability properties of exponential smoothing functions by elementary calculus. The simulation infrastructure is described in considerable detail, including the LLM prompts, which is a strength. However, the advertised positive message—that smooth rules balance stability and welfare—is not supported by the evidence presented. The simulation metric is a finite-horizon update frequency, not the formal stability notion used in the impossibility theorems, and smooth rules in fact never lock in. With five repetitions and no error bars, the empirical claims are also not statistically grounded.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4.5 and §5.1 (Definition 13 vs Definition 8)] The stability metric used in all simulations, stability[updates] = (|E| − U(R,E))/|E|, is not a proxy for Definition 8 stability. For any exponential smooth rule SCSF[Cs,param,t,Fexp_alpha], a newly proposed paragraph p has score 1 under APS and RAPS at the moment of proposal (the proposer is the only voter, so p+_r > 0 and p−_r = 0), and therefore Fexp_alpha(1,t) = 1. With the threshold x = 1/2 used throughout, the paragraph is immediately included, and subsequent downvotes can remove it. Consequently, for every such rule and every finite extension E′, there is a further extension that changes the output; no smooth rule satisfies Definition 8. Thus the Pareto frontiers in Figures 3 and 4 and the abstract's 'rapid convergence' statement do not provide evidence about the formal stability objective that appears in Corollary 1. The authors should either explicitly define and analyze a weaker 'bounded update frequency' notion, or modify the rule family so that the formal lock-in property is actually achieved.
  2. [§5.2–5.4] The positive conclusions of the simulation study rest on five repetitions per configuration with no error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests. For instance, the claim in §5.3 that the bimodal population 'exhibits a wider Pareto front' and the claim in §5.4 that longer event lists 'offer broader satisfaction-oriented configurations' are presented without any measure of variance or a statistical comparison of rules. No code or data archive is referenced, so the experiments are not reproducible. Since these simulations are the sole evidence for the paper's central claim that smooth rules achieve a good balance, this is a load-bearing weakness.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Appendix A.1 (proof of Theorem 1)] The necessity direction assumes that R and an RM rule differ on exactly one paragraph p; if R is not an RM rule, the instance may have multiple differing paragraphs. The proof can be repaired by constructing an RM rule that agrees with R on all other paragraphs via tie-breaking, but the text should state this construction explicitly.
  2. [Definition 17] The notation 'SCSF[Cs,param,t,Fα] := Fα(Cs(p,E),tparam) → [0,1]' conflates a function with its value; it should read 'SCSF[Cs,param,t,Fα](p,E) = Fα(Cs(p,E), param(E))', and the symbol 'tparam' is never formally defined (in Example 4 it is written as t|E|).
  3. [Definition 3] Agent satisfaction is undefined when Na = 0 because of division by Na; the paper should specify the convention for agents who have voted on no paragraphs (e.g., they contribute zero to community satisfaction).
  4. [§5.1] The text states that the threshold x = 1/2 is used throughout, but Example 5 in §5.4 evaluates CCR[APS,0.7]; the authors should reconcile this inconsistency.
  5. [Appendix D.2] The derivatives of Fexp_alpha with respect to t and α are nonpositive, not strictly negative, at boundary values such as x = 0, x = 1, or α = 0; the text should say 'nonpositive' rather than 'negative'.
  6. [Appendix C] The versatile stable rule in Appendix C locks the document after a designated abstention event on a special paragraph p*, which is a very weak notion of stability; the paper should discuss why such a rule is not a desirable resolution of the impossibility result.
  7. [§6] The statement 'our simulation framework has proven to be effective' is too strong given the absence of error bars and the small number of repetitions; 'appears to be effective' would be more appropriate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the SWM/stability impossibility follows from the paper's own definitions with independent proofs; the simulation trade-off claims rest on a finite-horizon stability proxy but that is a validity gap, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The central theoretical chain is self-contained and non-circular. Theorem 1 (SWM iff RM) is proved in Appendix A.1 by decomposing the additive community satisfaction into per-paragraph contributions; the proof does not assume the conclusion. Observation 1 is proved by constructing, for any RM rule and any proposed locking extension, a further event sequence of opposing votes that provably changes the output; this directly contradicts Definition 8. Corollary 1 then follows logically. No parameter is fitted, and no load-bearing result is imported from the authors' prior work; the many Talmon self-citations appear only in related-work and motivation contexts and do not support the theorems. The experimental section does introduce a different quantity, stability[updates] = (|E|-U(R,E))/|E|, which is a finite-horizon proxy rather than the formal eventual-lock-in stability of Definition 8; the paper itself lists 'Performing theoretical analysis on smooth rules' as future work (Section 6). This is a substantive correctness limitation of the convergence claim, but it is not a circular reduction: the smooth rules' output trajectories are simulated, and the proxy is not definitionally identical to the rule's inputs. The mild sense in which RM rules achieve high satisfaction is simply the intended definition of social welfare maximization, not a disguised restatement of the paper's novel claims. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited, and the appropriate finding is no significant circularity (score 0).

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No hidden fitted parameters are used; the free parameters listed are rule-design knobs swept in simulations. The main modeling commitments are the additive satisfaction objective and the stance-based preference model.

free parameters (4)
  • Inclusion threshold x = 0.5 in main simulations, 0.7 in Example 5
    CCR rules include a paragraph when its score is at least x; the choice of threshold is a modeling decision, not fitted to data.
  • Smoothing parameter alpha = grid {0.1, 0.3, 0.5, 1.0}
    Controls how quickly smooth CCRs become stringent; swept in simulations, not fitted to data.
  • Harsh cutoff t = grid {0, 50, 100, 150}
    Event count at which harsh rules freeze; chosen for experiments.
  • RAMS minimum approval proportion beta = grid {0.05, 0.1, 0.3, 0.5}
    Participation threshold in beta-RAMS; swept, not estimated.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The document is an unordered set of independent paragraphs; no ordering or semantic interaction affects the outcome.
    Remark 1 makes satisfaction separable and turns the problem into a multiwinner-style set selection.
  • domain assumption Each agent's preference over a paragraph is fully captured by their last vote, and repeated vote changes are allowed.
    Definition 1 and Remark 2; the theoretical results are stated in terms of the stance matrix.
  • ad hoc to paper Social welfare equals the sum of agents' satisfaction, where satisfaction is the fraction of voted paragraphs whose inclusion matches the agent's stance.
    Definition 4; this objective makes RM rules optimal and is not derived from external behavioral data.
  • ad hoc to paper Stability means that from any event list there exists some future extension after which the output never changes.
    Definition 8; this weak criterion drives Observation 1 and Corollary 1.
  • domain assumption LLM-generated votes are treated as valid preference reports for the simulation claims.
    Section 5.4; the promising results depend on GPT-4o-mini outputs aligning with intended strategic behavior.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Dynamic Approach to Collaborative Document Writing (Full Version)." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NLSZTHST

@misc{pith2026250817489,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Dynamic Approach to Collaborative Document Writing (Full Version)},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NLSZTHST}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.17489}
}
read the original abstract

We introduce a model for collaborative text aggregation in which an agent community coauthors a document, modeled as an unordered collection of paragraphs, using a dynamic mechanism: agents propose paragraphs and vote on those suggested by others. We formalize the setting and explore its realizations, concentrating on voting mechanisms that aggregate votes into a single, dynamic document. We focus on two desiderata: the eventual stability of the process and its expected social welfare. Following an impossibility result, we describe several aggregation methods and report on agent-based simulations that utilize natural language processing (NLP) and large-language models (LLMs) to model agents and their contexts. Using these simulations, we demonstrate promising results regarding the possibility of rapid convergence to a high social welfare collaborative text.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abramowitz and E

    B. Abramowitz and E. Shapiro. How to amend a constitution? model, axioms, and supermajority rules. In AAMAS Conference proceedings, 2021

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Abramowitz, E

    B. Abramowitz, E. Shapiro, and N. Talmon. In the beginning there were n agents: Founding and amending a constitution. In Algorithmic Decision Theory: 7th International Conference, ADT 2021, Toulouse, France, November 3–5, 2021, Proceedings 7, pages 119–131. Springer, 2021

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Z. I. Abrams. Collaborative writing and text quality in google docs. Language Learning and Technology, 2019

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Behrens, A

    J. Behrens, A. Kistner, A. Nitsche, and B. Swierczek. The principles of LiquidFeedback. Interacktive Demokratie, 2014

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    Brandt, V

    F. Brandt, V . Conitzer, U. Endriss, J. Lang, and A. D. Procaccia. Hand- book of computational social choice. Cambridge, 2016

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Bulteau, G

    L. Bulteau, G. Shahaf, E. Shapiro, and N. Talmon. Aggregation over metric spaces: Proposing and voting in elections, budgeting, and legis- lation. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 70:1413–1439, 2021

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Catalyst

    P. Catalyst. Empowering project catalyst: Embracing consenz for inclu- sive and efficient governance. https://medium.com/@info_12762, 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Faliszewski, P

    P. Faliszewski, P. Skowron, A. Slinko, and N. Talmon. Committee scor- ing rules: Axiomatic classification and hierarchy. In IJCAI, pages 250– 256, 2016

    work page 2016

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    Faliszewski, P

    P. Faliszewski, P. Skowron, A. Slinko, and N. Talmon. Multiwinner vot- ing: A new challenge for social choice theory. Trends in computational social choice, 74(2017):27–47, 2017

    2017

  2. [10]

    Faliszewski, A

    P. Faliszewski, A. Slinko, and N. Talmon. The complexity of multi- winner voting rules with variable number of winners. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.06641, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Filtser and N

    A. Filtser and N. Talmon. Distributed monitoring of election winners. Artificial Intelligence, 276:79–104, 2019

    2019

  4. [12]

    S. Fish, P. Gölz, D. C. Parkes, A. D. Procaccia, G. Rusak, I. Shapira, and M. Wüthrich. Generative social choice, 2023

    2023

  5. [13]

    P. C. Fishburn. Condorcet social choice functions. SIAM Journal on applied Mathematics, 33(3):469–489, 1977

    1977

  6. [14]

    Gonzalez, A

    S. Gonzalez, A. Laruelle, and P. Solal. Dilemma with approval and disapproval votes. Social Choice and Welfare, 53:497–517, 2019

    2019

  7. [15]

    Halpern, G

    D. Halpern, G. Kehne, A. D. Procaccia, J. Tucker-Foltz, and M. Wüthrich. Representation with incomplete votes. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 37, pages 5657– 5664, 2023

    2023

  8. [16]

    D. M. Kilgour. Approval elections with a variable number of winners. Theory and Decision , 81(2):199–211, Aug. 2016. ISSN 0040-5833, 1573-7187. doi: 10.1007/s11238-016-9535-2

    2016 doi

  9. [17]

    not this one

    A. Laruelle. “not this one”: Experimental use of the approval and dis- approval ballot. Homo Oeconomicus, 38(1):15–28, 2021

    2021

  10. [18]

    Punetha and G

    N. Punetha and G. Jain. Advancing sentiment classification through a population game model approach. Scientific Reports, 14(1):20540, 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    Sahoo, A

    P. Sahoo, A. K. Singh, S. Saha, V . Jain, S. Mondal, and A. Chadha. A systematic survey of prompt engineering in large language models: Techniques and applications. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.07927, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Small, M

    C. Small, M. Bjorkegren, T. Erkkilä, L. Shaw, and C. Megill. Polis: Scaling deliberation by mapping high dimensional opinion spaces. Re- cerca: revista de pensament i anàlisi, 26(2), 2021

    2021

  13. [21]

    N. Talmon. Social choice around decentralized autonomous organiza- tions: on the computational social choice of digital communities. In Proceedings of AAMAS ’23, pages 1768–1773, 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    Population by age, sex and edu- cational attainment: Israel

    United Nations Statistics Division. Population by age, sex and edu- cational attainment: Israel. UNdata, 2022. URL https://data.un.org/ Data.aspx?d=POP&f=tableCode:30;countryCode:376;refYear:2022& c=2,3,6,8,10,12,14,16,17,18&s=_countryEnglishNameOrderBy: asc,refYear:desc,areaC...

    2022

  15. [23]

    L. Wang, J. Zhang, H. Yang, Z. Chen, J. Tang, Z. Zhang, X. Chen, Y . Lin, R. Song, W. X. Zhao, J. Xu, Z. Dou, J. Wang, and J.-R. Wen. User behavior simulation with large language model based agents,

  16. [24]

    J. C. Yang, M. Korecki, D. Dailisan, C. I. Hausladen, and D. Helbing. LLM voting: Human choices and AI collective decision making. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.01766, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Zhang, X

    E. Zhang, X. Wang, P. Gong, Y . Lin, and J. Mao. Usimagent: Large language models for simulating search users, 2024. URL https://arxiv. org/abs/2403.09142. Appendix Overview: A – Missing Proofs B – CCR Pseudocode C – A Versatile, Stable, Non-static CCR D – Smoothing Functions ...

    2024 arXiv

  18. [27]

    By Definition 7, as p ∈ Rm(T ),p+ r > p− r which implies that nP a=1 1{stance(T )a,p =+1} Na > nP a=1 1{stance(T )a,p =−1} Na

    SRm (p) = +1 and S′(p) = −1. By Definition 7, as p ∈ Rm(T ),p+ r > p− r which implies that nP a=1 1{stance(T )a,p =+1} Na > nP a=1 1{stance(T )a,p =−1} Na . Therefore, Satp(T,SRm (p) = +1) > Satp(T,S′(p) =−1)

  19. [28]

    Population 15 years of age and over, by educational attainment, age and sex

    SRm (p) = −1 and S′(p) = +1 . By Definition 7, as p /∈ Rm(T ), p+ r < p− r , similarly to case 1, leading to Satp(T,SRm (p) =−1)>Sat p(T,S′(p) = +1) . In both cases, we haveSatp(T,SRm )>Sat p(T,S′) for allp∈ P′. Since these are the only paragraphs where SRm and S′ differ, andS...

    2022

  20. [29]

    Whether to vote or propose

  21. [30]

    Variable placeholders includecurrent state, action hint, and dynami- cally integrated examples

    If voting, selecting the target paragraph and preference; or, if proposing, generating a new diverse proposal. Variable placeholders includecurrent state, action hint, and dynami- cally integrated examples. Our decision prompt follows the following template: Decision Prompt Te...

    2011

  22. [31]

    (Reasoning: Balances conventional and climate-related health considerations equally)

    [Health] Consider both traditional health metrics and climate-related health impacts in program planning. (Reasoning: Balances conventional and climate-related health considerations equally)

  23. [32]

    (Reasoning: Meets minimum requirements without exceeding them)

    [Building] Maintain current industry-standard energy codes for all new municipal buildings. (Reasoning: Meets minimum requirements without exceeding them)

  24. [33]

    (Reasoning: Balances different development approaches without preference)

    [Land Use] Consider both compact and traditional development patterns equally in zoning decisions. (Reasoning: Balances different development approaches without preference). If VOTE: Choose a paragraph and indicate clearly if you UPVOTE (agree), DOWNVOTE (disagree), or ABSTAIN...

  25. [2024]

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.02552

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.