Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 2 minor 106 references

AI of the People, by the People, for the People: A Social Choice Approach to Collective Control of Artificial Intelligence

T0 review · 2 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-05-21 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read Social choice theory can guide collective societal control over AI systems across the entire development process.

desk verdict This paper sketches a social choice framing for inserting collective input across the full ML pipeline but stays high-level without concrete axiom-to-mechanism mappings. read the letter →

arxiv 2605.16291 v1 pith:APDC7MRY submitted 2026-04-14 cs.CY cs.AIcs.GT

Paul Anton Bachmann , Niclas Boehmer , Lukas Daniel Klausner , Martin Lackner This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CYcs.AIcs.GT
keywords socialchoicetheorycollectivecontrolAIgovernancemachinelearningpipelinepreferenceaggregationalignmentdemocratic
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 introduces collective control of artificial intelligence as a way to involve groups of people in shaping AI through social choice methods. It claims this input should happen at multiple stages including selecting training data, defining objectives, and ensuring alignment with human values. This approach matters because it moves beyond high-level policy to practical mechanisms that use mathematical criteria for fairness in decision-making. Readers interested in democratic technology would see value in treating AI design as a series of collective choice problems solvable with established voting and aggregation tools.

What carries the argument

collective control of artificial intelligence, which applies social choice theory to aggregate public input for decisions at each stage of the machine learning pipeline

What would settle it

An empirical demonstration that a control mechanism violating core social choice axioms produces better societal acceptance or technical performance than one satisfying those axioms.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

We propose a new approach grounded in social choice theory, which we term collective control of artificial intelligence. We argue that collective input can and should be incorporated at multiple points across the ML development pipeline, from data collection through objective design to alignment. We further demonstrate that social choice provides a well-suited modelling language for the treatment of collective input across all stages and that its axiomatic methodology yields principled criteria for evaluating various control mechanisms. Overall, our conceptual contribution provides a mathematically grounded framework to implement and analyse collective control of AI systems.

Load-bearing premise

Social choice theory provides a well-suited modelling language for the treatment of collective input across all stages of the ML pipeline and its axiomatic methodology yields principled criteria for evaluating control mechanisms.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Control mechanisms for data collection can be evaluated for properties like representativeness using social choice axioms.
  • Objective design processes can incorporate diverse societal preferences through preference aggregation methods.
  • Alignment techniques become subject to formal criteria for collective approval rather than solely expert judgment.
  • The framework allows analysis of trade-offs between different points of intervention in AI development.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Designers could prototype voting-based systems for choosing AI training datasets in public experiments.
  • This view links AI ethics to classic problems of fair division and resource allocation studied in economics.
  • Future work might test whether axiomatic guarantees translate to better real-world acceptance of AI systems.
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, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a new approach called 'collective control of artificial intelligence' grounded in social choice theory to address societal control over AI systems. It contrasts this with existing macro-level governance work and argues that collective input should be incorporated at multiple stages of the ML development pipeline, including data collection, objective design, and alignment. The authors claim that social choice theory supplies a well-suited modeling language for collective input across these stages and that its axiomatic methodology yields principled criteria for evaluating control mechanisms, providing an overall mathematically grounded framework.

Significance. If the central claim can be substantiated by mapping social choice axioms to concrete, non-vacuous properties of control mechanisms at specific ML stages, the work would offer a valuable bridge between social choice theory and AI governance. This could enable more rigorous, principle-based design and analysis of collective decision processes in AI development, extending beyond high-level policy discussions. The conceptual framing is timely given growing AI adoption, though its immediate significance is constrained by the absence of explicit derivations or examples in the current manuscript.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The assertion that social choice theory 'yields principled criteria for evaluating various control mechanisms' is load-bearing for the central contribution but is not supported by any concrete mapping. No example is given of how a specific axiom (e.g., Pareto efficiency, independence of irrelevant alternatives, or strategy-proofness) would rank or rule out a control mechanism at a named pipeline stage such as objective design or alignment, leaving the criteria at a general level without engaging ML-specific features like high-dimensional objectives or noisy feedback.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: The claim that social choice provides a 'well-suited modelling language for the treatment of collective input across all stages' is asserted without addressing potential mismatches, such as the fact that many ML stages rely on non-preference-based signals (e.g., gradient updates from human feedback) rather than explicit preference aggregation; a demonstration that standard axioms extend non-trivially to these settings is needed to substantiate suitability.
minor comments (2)
  1. The introduction of the term 'collective control of artificial intelligence' as a new entity would benefit from an explicit comparison table or paragraph distinguishing it from related concepts such as participatory AI, democratic AI, or value alignment.
  2. Consider adding a diagram in the main text that maps social choice mechanisms to specific pipeline stages to improve clarity of the proposed framework.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments, which identify key areas where the manuscript's central claims would benefit from greater concreteness. We address each major comment in turn and indicate the revisions planned for the next version of the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The assertion that social choice theory 'yields principled criteria for evaluating various control mechanisms' is load-bearing for the central contribution but is not supported by any concrete mapping. No example is given of how a specific axiom (e.g., Pareto efficiency, independence of irrelevant alternatives, or strategy-proofness) would rank or rule out a control mechanism at a named pipeline stage such as objective design or alignment, leaving the criteria at a general level without engaging ML-specific features like high-dimensional objectives or noisy feedback.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract states the claim at a general level and that a concrete mapping would strengthen the presentation. The manuscript develops the overall framework and indicates how axioms can inform mechanism evaluation at different pipeline stages, but it does not supply the detailed, stage-specific illustrations requested. We will therefore revise by inserting a new illustrative subsection that maps Pareto efficiency to objective design, showing how the axiom rules out aggregation procedures that discard unanimous preferences over particular features and discussing its interaction with high-dimensional objective spaces. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The claim that social choice provides a 'well-suited modelling language for the treatment of collective input across all stages' is asserted without addressing potential mismatches, such as the fact that many ML stages rely on non-preference-based signals (e.g., gradient updates from human feedback) rather than explicit preference aggregation; a demonstration that standard axioms extend non-trivially to these settings is needed to substantiate suitability.

    Authors: The referee correctly notes that the suitability claim would be more robust if potential mismatches with non-explicit signals were addressed explicitly. The manuscript treats collective input broadly, including implicit signals derived from feedback, but does not demonstrate non-trivial axiom extensions in detail. In revision we will add a short discussion showing how strategy-proofness can be adapted to noisy human-feedback settings in the alignment stage, thereby supplying a concrete criterion for robust aggregation under gradient-based updates. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; proposal applies established external theory

full rationale

The paper's central contribution is a conceptual framework that applies social choice theory—an independently developed field with its own axiomatic literature—to stages of the ML pipeline. The abstract and provided text present this as an argument for suitability and for the value of axiomatic criteria, without any equations, fitted parameters, self-citations that bear the load of a uniqueness claim, or reductions that equate a derived result to its own inputs by construction. No self-definitional loops, renamed empirical patterns, or smuggled ansatzes appear in the given material. The derivation chain therefore remains self-contained against external benchmarks from social choice theory.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 1 assumptions · 1 invented entities

Abstract-only review limits visibility into specific parameters or entities; the proposal appears to rest on standard social choice axioms being transferable to AI pipeline decisions.

assumptions (1)
  • domain assumption Social choice theory axioms can be applied to model collective preferences over AI development choices.
    Invoked when claiming social choice is well-suited for collective input at multiple pipeline stages.
invented entities (1)
  • Collective control of artificial intelligence
    purpose: Framework for incorporating societal input into AI via social choice methods.
    New term introduced to organize the proposal; no independent evidence or falsifiable prediction provided in abstract.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of AI of the People, by the People, for the People: A Social Choice Approach to Collective Control of Artificial Intelligence." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/APDC7MRY

@misc{pith2026260516291,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: AI of the People, by the People, for the People: A Social Choice Approach to Collective Control of Artificial Intelligence},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/APDC7MRY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2605.16291}
}
read the original abstract

With the growing adoption of AI systems, reasoning about how society can exert control over AI becomes an increasingly urgent problem. Existing work on democratic control largely focuses on macro-level governance. In contrast, we propose a new approach grounded in social choice theory, which we term collective control of artificial intelligence. We argue that collective input can and should be incorporated at multiple points across the ML development pipeline, from data collection through objective design to alignment. We further demonstrate that social choice provides a well-suited modelling language for the treatment of collective input across all stages and that its axiomatic methodology yields principled criteria for evaluating various control mechanisms. Overall, our conceptual contribution provides a mathematically grounded framework to implement and analyse collective control of AI systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.16291 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A sketched ML development process; collective input can be meaningfully incorporated at each [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A sketch of our mathematical model, where we view an AI system [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

106 extracted references · 106 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Dynamic Fairness-Aware Recommendation Through Multi-Agent Social Choice.ACM Trans

    Amanda Aird, Paresha Farastu, Joshua Sun, Elena Stefancov ´a, Cassidy All, Amy V oida, Nicholas Mattei, and Robin Burke. Dynamic Fairness-Aware Recommendation Through Multi-Agent Social Choice.ACM Trans. Recomm. Syst., 3(2), 2025. doi: 10.1145/3690653

    work page doi:10.1145/3690653 2025

  2. [2]

    Multi-Winner Approval V oting Goes Epistemic

    Tahar Allouche, J ´erˆome Lang, and Florian Yger. Multi-Winner Approval V oting Goes Epistemic. In Proceedings of the 38th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, UAI 2022/Proceedings of Machine Learning Research 180, pages 75–84, Cambridge, MA, 2022. JMLR and Microtome Publishing. URLhttps://proceedings.mlr.press/v180/allouche22a.html

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Practical GUI Testing of Android Applications Via Model Abstraction and Refinement

    Saleema Amershi, Andrew Begel, Christian Bird, Robert DeLine, Harald Gall, Ece Kamar, Nachi- appan Nagappan, Besmira Nushi, and Thomas Zimmermann. Software Engineering for Machine 16 Learning: A Case Study. In2019 IEEE/ACM 41st International Conference on Software Engineer- ing: Software Engineering in Practice, ICSE-SEIP 2019, pages 291–300, Washington, ...

    work page doi:10.1109/icse-seip.2019.00042 2019

  4. [4]

    Anderson, S

    Michael Anderson and Susan Leigh Anderson. Machine Ethics: Creating an Ethical Intelligent Agent. AI Mag., 28(4):15–26, 2007. doi: 10.1609/AIMAG.v28i4.2065

    work page doi:10.1609/aimag.v28i4.2065 2007

  5. [5]

    The Reanimation of Pseudoscience in Machine Learning and Its Ethical Repercussions.Patterns, 5(9), 2024

    Mel Andrews, Andrew Smart, and Abeba Birhane. The Reanimation of Pseudoscience in Machine Learning and Its Ethical Repercussions.Patterns, 5(9), 2024. doi: 10.1016/J.PATTER.2024.101027

    work page doi:10.1016/j.patter.2024.101027 2024

  6. [6]

    Learning to Elect

    Cem Anil and Xuchan Bao. Learning to Elect. InAdvances in Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems 34, NeurIPS 2021, pages 8006–8017, Red Hook, NY , 2021. Curran As- sociates. URLhttps://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2021/ hash/42d6c7d61481d1c21bd1635f59edae05-Abstract.html

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    AI Magazine , volume =

    Lora Aroyo and Chris Welty. Truth is a Lie: Crowd Truth and the Seven Myths of Human Annotation. AI Mag., 36(1):15–24, 2015. doi: 10.1609/AIMAG.v36i1.2564

    work page doi:10.1609/aimag.v36i1.2564 2015

  8. [8]

    Crowd- sourcing for Multiple-Choice Question Answering.Proc

    Bahadir Ismail Aydin, Yavuz Selim Yilmaz, Yaliang Li, Qi Li, Jing Gao, and Murat Demirbas. Crowd- sourcing for Multiple-Choice Question Answering.Proc. AAAI Conf. Artif. Intell., 28(2):2946–2953,

    work page

Show all 106 references
  1. [9]

    doi: 10.1609/AAAI.v28i2.19016

    doi

  2. [10]

    Big Tech, Algorithmic Power, and Democratic Control.J

    U ˘gur Aytac ¸. Big Tech, Algorithmic Power, and Democratic Control.J. Politics, 86(4):1431–1445,

  3. [11]

    doi: 10.1007/S43681-025-00734-4

    Nasser Bahrami.AIgemony: Power Dynamics, Dominant Narratives, and Colonisation.AI Ethics, 5 (5):5081–5103, 2025. doi: 10.1007/S43681-025-00734-4

    2025 doi

  4. [12]

    Bowman, Zac Hatfield-Dodds, Ben Mann, Dario Amodei, Nicholas Joseph, Sam McCandlish, Tom Brown, and Jared Kaplan

    Yuntao Bai, Saurav Kadavath, Sandipan Kundu, Amanda Askell, Jackson Kernion, Andy Jones, Anna Chen, Anna Goldie, Azalia Mirhoseini, Cameron McKinnon, Carol Chen, Catherine Olsson, Christo- pher Olah, Danny Hernandez, Dawn Drain, Deep Ganguli, Dustin Li, Eli Tran-Johnson, Ethan...

    2022

  5. [13]

    How to Regulate Large Language Models for Responsible AI.IEEE Trans

    Jose Berengueres. How to Regulate Large Language Models for Responsible AI.IEEE Trans. Tech- nol. Soc., 5(2):191–197, 2024. doi: 10.1109/TTS.2024.3403681

    2024 doi

  6. [14]

    Beyond Individual Accountability: (Re-)Asserting Democratic Control of AI

    Daniel James Bogiatzis-Gibbons. Beyond Individual Accountability: (Re-)Asserting Democratic Control of AI. InProceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Trans- parency, FAccT ’24, pages 74–84, New York, NY , 2024. ACM. doi: 10.1145/3630106.3658541

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    Collective Choice under Dichotomous Pref- erences.J

    Anna Bogomolnaia, Herv ´e Moulin, and Richard Stong. Collective Choice under Dichotomous Pref- erences.J. Econ. Theory, 122(2):165–184, 2005. doi: 10.1016/J.JET.2004.05.005

    2005 doi

  8. [16]

    Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2016

    Felix Brandt, Vincent Conitzer, Ulle Endriss, J ´erˆome Lang, and Ariel Procaccia, editors.Handbook of Computational Social Choice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2016. ISBN 978-1-107- 06043-2. 17

    2016

  9. [17]

    Aggregating Complex Annotations via Merging and Match- ing

    Alexander Braylan and Matthew Lease. Aggregating Complex Annotations via Merging and Match- ing. InProceedings of the 27th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Min- ing, KDD ’21, pages 86–94, New York, NY , 2021. ACM. doi: 10.1145/3447548.3467411

    2021 doi

  10. [18]

    Multiwin- ner Elections with Diversity Constraints.Proc

    Robert Bredereck, Piotr Faliszewski, Ayumi Igarashi, Martin Lackner, and Piotr Skowron. Multiwin- ner Elections with Diversity Constraints.Proc. AAAI Conf. Artif. Intell., 32(1):933–940, 2024. doi: 10.1609/AAAI.v32i1.11457

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    V oting: A Machine Learning Approach.Eur

    D ´avid Burka, Clemens Puppe, L ´aszl´o Szepesv´ary, and Attila Tasn´adi. V oting: A Machine Learning Approach.Eur. J. Oper. Res., 299(3):1003–1017, 2022. doi: 10.1016/J.EJOR.2021.10.005

    2022 doi

  12. [20]

    Confident in the Crowd: Bayesian Inference to Improve Data Labelling in Crowdsourcing

    Pierce Burke and Richard Klein. Confident in the Crowd: Bayesian Inference to Improve Data Labelling in Crowdsourcing. In2020 International SAUPEC/RobMech/PRASA Conference, SAUPEC/RobMech/PRASA 2020, Washington, DC, 2020. IEEE. doi: 10.1109/SAUPEC/RobMech/ PRASA48453.2020.9041099

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    Broadening the Research Agenda for Computational Social Choice: Multiple Preference Profiles and Multiple Solutions

    Niclas B ¨ohmer and Rolf Niedermeier. Broadening the Research Agenda for Computational Social Choice: Multiple Preference Profiles and Multiple Solutions. InProceedings of the 20th Interna- tional Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS ’21, Richland, SC,...

    2021

  14. [22]

    Michaud, Jacob Pfau, Dmitrii Krasheninnikov, Xin Chen, Lauro Langosco, Peter Hase, Erdem Bıyık, Anca Dragan, David Krueger, Dorsa Sadigh, and Dylan Hadfield-Menell

    Stephen Casper, Xander Davies, Claudia Shi, Thomas Krendl Gilbert, J ´er´emy Scheurer, Javier Rando, Rachel Freedman, Tomasz Korbak, David Lindner, Pedro Freire, Tony Wang, Samuel Marks, Charbel-Rapha¨el S´egerie, Micah Carroll, Andi Peng, Phillip Christoffersen, Mehul Damani,...

    2023

  15. [23]

    Decentralized Governance of Autonomous AI Agents, 2024

    Tomer Jordi Chaffer, Charles von Goins II, Bayo Okusanya, Dontrail Cotlage, and Justin Goldston. Decentralized Governance of Autonomous AI Agents, 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    The Collective Intelligence Project, 2023

    Collective Intelligence Project. The Collective Intelligence Project, 2023. URLhttps://www. cip.org/whitepaper

    2023

  17. [25]

    Holliday, Bob M

    Vincent Conitzer, Rachel Freedman, Jobst Heitzig, Wesley H. Holliday, Bob M. Jacobs, Nathan Lam- bert, Milan Mosse, Eric Pacuit, Stuart Russell, Hailey Schoelkopf, Emanuel Tewolde, and William S. Zwicker. Position: Social Choice Should Guide AI Alignment in Dealing with Divers...

    2024

  18. [26]

    Gaebler, Hamed Nilforoshan, Ravi Shroff, and Sharad Goel

    Sam Corbett-Davies, Johann D. Gaebler, Hamed Nilforoshan, Ravi Shroff, and Sharad Goel. The Measure and Mismeasure of Fairness.J. Mach. Learn. Res., 24(312):1–117, 2023. URLhttp: //jmlr.org/papers/v24/22-1511.html

    2023

  19. [27]

    Who Audits the Auditors? Recommendations from a Field Scan of the Algorithmic Auditing Ecosystem

    Sasha Costanza-Chock, Inioluwa Deborah Raji, and Joy Buolamwini. Who Audits the Auditors? Recommendations from a Field Scan of the Algorithmic Auditing Ecosystem. InProceedings of the 18 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, FAccT ’22, pages 1571–1...

    2022 doi

  20. [28]

    Estimating Deep Learning Energy Consumption Based on Model Architecture and Training Environment, 2025

    Santiago del Rey, Lu ´ıs Cruz, Xavier Franch, and Silverio Mart ´ınez-Fern´andez. Estimating Deep Learning Energy Consumption Based on Model Architecture and Training Environment, 2025

    2025

  21. [29]

    Settling the Score: Portioning with Cardi- nal Preferences

    Edith Elkind, Warut Suksompong, and Nicholas Teh. Settling the Score: Portioning with Cardi- nal Preferences. In26th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ECAI 2023, Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications 372, pages 621–628, Amsterdam, 2023. IOS Press....

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    Temporal Fairness in Multiwinner V oting

    Edith Elkind, Svetlana Obraztsova, and Nicholas Teh. Temporal Fairness in Multiwinner V oting. Proc. AAAI Conf. Artif. Intell., 38(20):22633–22640, 2024. doi: 10.1609/AAAI.v38i20.30273

    2024 doi

  23. [31]

    Not in My Backyard! Temporal V oting over Public Chores

    Edith Elkind, Tzeh Yuan Neoh, and Nicholas Teh. Not in My Backyard! Temporal V oting over Public Chores. InProceedings of the Thirty-Fourth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-25, pages 3814–3820. IJCAI, 2025. doi: 10.24963/IJCAI.2025/424

    2025 doi

  24. [32]

    Verifying Proportionality in Temporal V oting.Proc

    Edith Elkind, Svetlana Obraztsova, Jannik Peters, and Nicholas Teh. Verifying Proportionality in Temporal V oting.Proc. AAAI Conf. Artif. Intell., 39(13):13805–13813, 2025. doi: 10.1609/AAAI. v39i13.33509

    2025 doi

  25. [33]

    Multiwinner V oting: A New Challenge for Social Choice Theory

    Piotr Faliszewski, Piotr Skowron, Arkadii Slinko, and Nimrod Talmon. Multiwinner V oting: A New Challenge for Social Choice Theory. In Ulle Endriss, editor,Trends in Computational Social Choice, chapter 2, pages 27–47. AI Access Foundation, El Segundo, CA, 2017. URLhttps://arc...

    2017

  26. [34]

    Fair and Efficient Social Choice in Dynamic Settings

    Rupert Freeman, Seyed Majid Zahedi, and Vincent Conitzer. Fair and Efficient Social Choice in Dynamic Settings. InProceedings of the Twenty-Sixth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-17, pages 4580–4587. IJCAI, 2017. doi: 10.24963/IJCAI.2017/639

    2017 doi

  27. [35]

    Pennock, Dominik Peters, and Jennifer Wortman Vaughan

    Rupert Freeman, David M. Pennock, Dominik Peters, and Jennifer Wortman Vaughan. Truthful Aggregation of Budget Proposals.J. Econ. Theory, 193, 2021. doi: 10.1016/J.JET.2021.105234

    2021 doi

  28. [36]

    A Quantitative Version of the Gibbard– Satterthwaite Theorem for Three Alternatives.SIAM J

    Ehud Friedgut, Gil Kalai, Nathan Keller, and Noam Nisan. A Quantitative Version of the Gibbard– Satterthwaite Theorem for Three Alternatives.SIAM J. Comput., 40(3):934–952, 2011. doi: 10.1137/ 090756740

    2011

  29. [37]

    Collective Ownership of AI

    Markus Furendal. Collective Ownership of AI. In Martin H ¨ahnel and Regina M ¨uller, editors,A Companion to Applied Philosophy of AI, chapter 26, pages 372–386. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, 2025. doi: 10.1002/9781394238651.ch26

    2025 doi

  30. [38]

    Artificial Intelligence, Values, and Alignment.Minds Mach., 30(3):411–437, 2020

    Iason Gabriel. Artificial Intelligence, Values, and Alignment.Minds Mach., 30(3):411–437, 2020. doi: 10.1007/S11023-020-09539-2

    2020 doi

  31. [39]

    Procaccia, Itai Shapira, Yevgeniy V orobeychik, and Junlin Wu

    Luise Ge, Daniel Halpern, Evi Micha, Ariel D. Procaccia, Itai Shapira, Yevgeniy V orobeychik, and Junlin Wu. Axioms for AI Alignment from Human Feedback. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems 37, NeurIPS 2024, pages 80439–80465, Red Hook, NY , 2024. Curran Associ...

    2024 doi

  32. [40]

    Gehrlein and Dominique Lepelley.Voting Paradoxes and Group Coherence: The Con- dorcet Efficiency of Voting Rules

    William V . Gehrlein and Dominique Lepelley.Voting Paradoxes and Group Coherence: The Con- dorcet Efficiency of Voting Rules. Studies in Choice and Welfare. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, 2011. ISBN 978-3-642-03106-9. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-03107-6. 19

    2011 doi

  33. [41]

    Gershman

    Samuel J. Gershman. Subjective Functions, 2025

    2025

  34. [42]

    Reg- ulation and NLP (RegNLP): Taming Large Language Models

    Catalina Goanta, Nikolaos Aletras, Ilias Chalkidis, Sofia Ranchord ´as, and Gerasimos Spanakis. Reg- ulation and NLP (RegNLP): Taming Large Language Models. InProceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2023, pages 8712–8724, S...

    2023 doi

  35. [43]

    Regulating ChatGPT and other Large Generative AI Models

    Philipp Hacker, Andreas Engel, and Marco Mauer. Regulating ChatGPT and other Large Generative AI Models. InProceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Trans- parency, FAccT ’23, pages 1112–1123, New York, NY , 2023. ACM. doi: 10.1145/3593013.3594067

    2023 doi

  36. [44]

    Blind Spots in AI Ethics.AI Ethics, 2(4):851–867, 2022

    Thilo Hagendorff. Blind Spots in AI Ethics.AI Ethics, 2(4):851–867, 2022. doi: 10.1007/ S43681-021-00122-8

    2022

  37. [45]

    Procaccia, Jamie Tucker-Foltz, and Manuel W ¨uthrich

    Daniel Halpern, Gregory Kehne, Ariel D. Procaccia, Jamie Tucker-Foltz, and Manuel W ¨uthrich. Representation with Incomplete V otes.Proc. AAAI Conf. Artif. Intell., 37(5):5657–5664, 2023. doi: 10.1609/AAAI.v37i5.25702

    2023 doi

  38. [46]

    Ethics Guidelines for Trustwor- thy AI, 2019

    High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence. Ethics Guidelines for Trustwor- thy AI, 2019. URLhttps://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/ ethics-guidelines-trustworthy-ai

    2019

  39. [47]

    Learning How to V ote with Principles: Axiomatic Insights Into the Collective Decisions of Neural Networks.J

    Levin Hornischer and Zoi Terzopoulou. Learning How to V ote with Principles: Axiomatic Insights Into the Collective Decisions of Neural Networks.J. Artif. Intell. Res., 83, 2025. doi: 10.1613/JAIR. 1.18890

    2025 doi

  40. [48]

    Liao, Esin Durmus, Alex Tamkin, and Deep Ganguli

    Saffron Huang, Divya Siddarth, Liane Lovitt, Thomas I. Liao, Esin Durmus, Alex Tamkin, and Deep Ganguli. Collective Constitutional AI: Aligning a Language Model with Public Input. InProceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, FAccT ’24...

    2024 doi

  41. [49]

    Architectural Tactics to Achieve Quality Attributes of Machine-Learning-Enabled Systems: A Systematic Literature Review.J

    Vladislav Indykov, Daniel Str ¨uber, and Rebekka Wohlrab. Architectural Tactics to Achieve Quality Attributes of Machine-Learning-Enabled Systems: A Systematic Literature Review.J. Syst. Softw., 223, 2025. doi: 10.1016/J.JSS.2025.112373

    2025 doi

  42. [50]

    AI Alignment: A Contemporary Survey.ACM Comput

    Jiaming Ji, Tianyi Qiu, Boyuan Chen, Jiayi Zhou, Borong Zhang, Donghai Hong, Hantao Lou, Kaile Wang, Yawen Duan, Zhonghao He, Lukas Vierling, Zhaowei Zhang, Fanzhi Zeng, Juntao Dai, Xuehai Pan, Hua Xu, Aidan O’Gara, Kwan Ng, Brian Tse, Jie Fu, Stephen Mcaleer, Yanfeng Wang, Mi...

    2026 doi

  43. [51]

    Stakeholder Participation for Responsible AI Development: Disconnects Between Guidance and Current Practice

    Emma Kallina, Thomas Bohn ´e, and Jatinder Singh. Stakeholder Participation for Responsible AI Development: Disconnects Between Guidance and Current Practice. InProceedings of the 2025 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, FAccT ’25, pages 1060–1079, Ne...

    2025 doi

  44. [52]

    The Political Economy of AI: Towards Democratic Control of the Means of Pre- diction

    Maximilian Kasy. The Political Economy of AI: Towards Democratic Control of the Means of Pre- diction. Iza discussion papers, no. 16948, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA), Bonn, 2024. URL https://hdl.handle.net/10419/295971

    2024

  45. [53]

    University of Chicago Press, Hoboken, NJ, 2025

    Maximilian Kasy.The Means of Prediction: How AI Really Works (and Who Benefits). University of Chicago Press, Hoboken, NJ, 2025. ISBN 978-0-226-83953-0. 20

    2025

  46. [54]

    Perpetual V oting: Fairness in Long-Term Decision Making.Proc

    Martin Lackner. Perpetual V oting: Fairness in Long-Term Decision Making.Proc. AAAI Conf. Artif. Intell., 34(2):2103–2110, 2020. doi: 10.1609/AAAI.v34i02.5584

    2020 doi

  47. [55]

    Proportional Decisions in Perpetual V oting.Proc

    Martin Lackner and Jan Maly. Proportional Decisions in Perpetual V oting.Proc. AAAI Conf. Artif. Intell., 37(5):5722–5729, 2023. doi: 10.1609/AAAI.v37i5.25710

    2023 doi

  48. [56]

    SpringerBriefs in Intelligent Systems

    Martin Lackner and Piotr Skowron.Multi-Winner Voting with Approval Preferences. SpringerBriefs in Intelligent Systems. Springer, Cham, 2023. ISBN 978-3-031-09015-8

    2023

  49. [57]

    University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1987

    George Lakoff.Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1987. ISBN 0-226-46803-8

    1987

  50. [58]

    Social Choice Theory

    Christian List. Social Choice Theory. In Edward N. Zalta and Uri Nodelman, editors,Stanford Ency- clopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 2022. URL https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2022/entries/social-choice/

    2022

  51. [59]

    Bakker, Fazl Barez, Matija Franklin, Andreas Haupt, Jobst Heitzig, Wesley H

    Ryan Lowe, Joe Edelman, Tan Zhi-Xuan, Oliver Klingefjord, Ellie Hain, Vincent Wang, Atrisha Sarkar, Michiel A. Bakker, Fazl Barez, Matija Franklin, Andreas Haupt, Jobst Heitzig, Wesley H. Holliday, Julian Jara-Ettinger, Atoosa Kasirzadeh, Ryan Othniel Kearns, James Ravi Kirkpa...

    2025

  52. [60]

    Learning under Concept Drift: A Review.IEEE Trans

    Jie Lu, Anjin Liu, Fan Dong, Feng Gu, Jo ˜ao Gama, and Guangquan Zhang. Learning under Concept Drift: A Review.IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng., 31(12):2346–2363, 2019. doi: 10.1109/TKDE. 2018.2876857

    2019 doi

  53. [61]

    Preference Elicitation and Robust Winner Determination for Single- and Multi-Winner Social Choice.Artif

    Tyler Lu and Craig Boutilier. Preference Elicitation and Robust Winner Determination for Single- and Multi-Winner Social Choice.Artif. Intell., 279, 2020. doi: 10.1016/J.ARTINT.2019.103203

    2020 doi

  54. [62]

    Large Language Models: Their Success and Impact.Forecast., 5(3):536–549, 2023

    Spyros Makridakis, Fotios Petropoulos, and Yanfei Kang. Large Language Models: Their Success and Impact.Forecast., 5(3):536–549, 2023. doi: 10.3390/FORECAST5030030

    2023 doi

  55. [63]

    A Theoretical Analysis of Soft-Label vs Hard-Label Training in Neural Networks, 2024

    Saptarshi Mandal, Xiaojun Lin, and Rayadurgam Srikant. A Theoretical Analysis of Soft-Label vs Hard-Label Training in Neural Networks, 2024

    2024

  56. [64]

    DeepV oting: Learning and Fine-Tuning V oting Rules with Canonical Embeddings, 2024

    Leonardo Matone, Ben Abramowitz, Ben Armstrong, Avinash Balakrishnan, and Nicholas Mattei. DeepV oting: Learning and Fine-Tuning V oting Rules with Canonical Embeddings, 2024

    2024

  57. [65]

    Bertalan Mesk ´o and Eric J. Topol. The Imperative for Regulatory Oversight of Large Language Mod- els (or Generative AI) in Healthcare.npj Digit. Med., 6, 2023. doi: 10.1038/S41746-023-00873-0

    2023 doi

  58. [66]

    Collective Governance for AI: Points of Intervention, 2025

    Metagov. Collective Governance for AI: Points of Intervention, 2025. URLhttps://metagov. org/cg-ai/

    2025

  59. [67]

    The Effects of Data Quality on Machine Learning Performance on Tabular Data.Inf

    Sedir Mohammed, Lukas Budach, Moritz Feuerpfeil, Nina Ihde, Andrea Nathansen, Nele Noack, Hendrik Patzlaff, Felix Naumann, and Hazar Harmouch. The Effects of Data Quality on Machine Learning Performance on Tabular Data.Inf. Syst., 132, 2025. doi: 10.1016/J.IS.2025.102549

    2025 doi

  60. [68]

    Learning to Design Fair and Private V oting Rules.J

    Farhad Mohsin, Ao Liu, Pin-Yu Chen, Francesca Rossi, and Lirong Xia. Learning to Design Fair and Private V oting Rules.J. Artif. Intell. Res., 75:1139–1176, 2022. doi: 10.1613/JAIR.1.13734. 21

    2022 doi

  61. [69]

    On Strategy-Proofness and Single Peakedness.Public Choice, 35(4):437–455, 1980

    Herv ´e Moulin. On Strategy-Proofness and Single Peakedness.Public Choice, 35(4):437–455, 1980. doi: 10.1007/BF00128122

    1980 doi

  62. [70]

    The Proportional Veto Principle.Rev

    Herv ´e Moulin. The Proportional Veto Principle.Rev. Econ. Stud., 48(3):407–416, 1981. doi: 10. 2307/2297154

    1981

  63. [71]

    Condorcet’s Principle Implies the No Show Paradox.J

    Herv ´e Moulin. Condorcet’s Principle Implies the No Show Paradox.J. Econ. Theory, 45(1):53–64,

  64. [72]

    doi: 10.1016/0022-0531(88)90253-0

    doi

  65. [73]

    Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,

    Herv ´e Moulin.Axioms of Cooperative Decision Making. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,

  66. [74]

    doi: 10.1017/CCOL0521360552

    ISBN 978-0-521-36055-5. doi: 10.1017/CCOL0521360552

    doi

  67. [75]

    A V oting-Based System for Ethical Decision Making.Proc

    Ritesh Noothigattu, Snehalkumar Gaikwad, Edmond Awad, Sohan Dsouza, Iyad Rahwan, Pradeep Ravikumar, and Ariel Procaccia. A V oting-Based System for Ethical Decision Making.Proc. AAAI Conf. Artif. Intell., 32(1):1587–1594, 2018. doi: 10.1609/AAAI.v32i1.11512

    2018 doi

  68. [76]

    Zhang, Bilva Chandra, Michiel A

    Aviv Ovadya, Kyle Redman, Luke Thorburn, Quan Ze Chen, Oliver Smith, Flynn Devine, Andrew Konya, Smitha Milli, Manon Revel, Kevin Feng, Amy X. Zhang, Bilva Chandra, Michiel A. Bakker, and Atoosa Kasirzadeh. Position: Democratic AI is Possible. The Democracy Levels Framework Sh...

    2025

  69. [77]

    Parkes and Ariel Procaccia

    David C. Parkes and Ariel Procaccia. Dynamic Social Choice with Evolving Preferences.Proc. AAAI Conf. Artif. Intell., 27(1):767–773, 2013. doi: 10.1609/AAAI.v27i1.8570

    2013 doi

  70. [78]

    Bender, Emily Denton, and Alex Hanna

    Amandalynne Paullada, Inioluwa Deborah Raji, Emily M. Bender, Emily Denton, and Alex Hanna. Data and Its (Dis)Contents: A Survey of Dataset Development and Use in Machine Learning Re- search.Patterns, 2(11), 2021. doi: 10.1016/J.PATTER.2021.100336

    2021 doi

  71. [79]

    Human Uncertainty Makes Classification More Robust

    Joshua Peterson, Ruairidh Battleday, Thomas Griffiths, and Olga Russakovsky. Human Uncertainty Makes Classification More Robust. In2019 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, ICCV 2019, pages 9616–9625, Washington, DC, 2019. IEEE. doi: 10.1109/ICCV .2019.00971

    2019 doi

  72. [80]

    V oting Rules as Statistical Estimators.Soc

    Marcus Pivato. V oting Rules as Statistical Estimators.Soc. Choice Welf., 40(2):581–630, 2013. doi: 10.1007/S00355-011-0619-1

    2013 doi

  73. [81]

    The “Problem” of Human Label Variation: On Ground Truth in Data, Modeling and Evaluation

    Barbara Plank. The “Problem” of Human Label Variation: On Ground Truth in Data, Modeling and Evaluation. InProceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2022, pages 10671–10682, Stroudsburg, PA, 2022. ACL. doi: 10.18653/V1/ 2022....

    2022 doi

  74. [82]

    Learning from Imperfect Annotations, 2020

    Emmanouil Antonios Platanios, Maruan Al-Shedivat, Eric Xing, and Tom Mitchell. Learning from Imperfect Annotations, 2020

    2020

  75. [83]

    Barbara Prainsack. Our Stakes in Data: How Do We (Re)Gain Democratic Control Over Digital Prac- tices? In Jurgen Goossens, Esther Keymolen, and Antonia Stanojevi ´c, editors,Public Governance and Emerging Technologies: Values, Trust, and Regulatory Compliance, pages 131–147. S...

    2025 doi

  76. [84]

    Procaccia, Aviv Zohar, Yoni Peleg, and Jeffrey S

    Ariel D. Procaccia, Aviv Zohar, Yoni Peleg, and Jeffrey S. Rosenschein. The Learnability of V oting Rules.Artif. Intell., 173(12–13):1133–1149, 2009. doi: 10.1016/J.ARTINT.2009.03.003. 22

    2009 doi

  77. [85]

    White, Margaret Mitchell, Timnit Gebru, Ben Hutchinson, Jamila Smith-Loud, Daniel Theron, and Parker Barnes

    Inioluwa Deborah Raji, Andrew Smart, Rebecca N. White, Margaret Mitchell, Timnit Gebru, Ben Hutchinson, Jamila Smith-Loud, Daniel Theron, and Parker Barnes. Closing the AI Accountability Gap: Defining an End-to-End Framework for Internal Algorithmic Auditing. InProceedings of ...

    2020 doi

  78. [86]

    MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2026

    Vijay Janapa Reddi.Introduction to Machine Learning Systems. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2026. URLhttps://mlsysbook.ai/

    2026

  79. [87]

    Michel Regenwetter, Bernard Grofman, A. A. J. Marley, and Ilia Tsetlin.Behavioral Social Choice: Probabilistic Models, Statistical Inference, and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge, 2006. ISBN 978-0-521-82968-7

    2006

  80. [88]

    Catastrophic Computation

    Rainer Rehak. Catastrophic Computation. On the Impossibility of Sustainable Artificial Intelligence. InDigital Humanism, DIGHUM 2025, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 16319, pages 110–118, Cham, 2025. Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-032-11108-1 8

    2025 doi

  81. [89]

    Democratic Control of Information in the Age of Surveillance Capitalism.J

    Andrea Sangiovanni. Democratic Control of Information in the Age of Surveillance Capitalism.J. Appl. Philos., 36(2):212–216, 2019. doi: 10.1111/JAPP.12363

    2019 doi

  82. [90]

    Democratising AI: Multiple Meanings, Goals, and Methods

    Elizabeth Seger, Aviv Ovadya, Divya Siddarth, Ben Garfinkel, and Allan Dafoe. Democratising AI: Multiple Meanings, Goals, and Methods. InProceedings of the 2023 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, AIES ’23, pages 715–722, New York, NY , 2023. ACM. doi: 10.1145/3600...

    2023 doi

  83. [91]

    Selbst, danah boyd, Sorelle A

    Andrew D. Selbst, danah boyd, Sorelle A. Friedler, Suresh Venkatasubramanian, and Janet Vertesi. Fairness and Abstraction in Sociotechnical Systems. InProceedings of the 2019 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, FAT* ’19, pages 59–68, New York, NY , 2019. ...

    2019 doi

  84. [92]

    Shah, David Entwistle, and Michael A

    Nigam H. Shah, David Entwistle, and Michael A. Pfeffer. Creation and Adoption of Large Language Models in Medicine.JAMA, 330(9):866–869, 2023. doi: 10.1001/JAMA.2023.14217

    2023 doi

  85. [93]

    Participation Is Not a Design Fix for Machine Learning

    Mona Sloane, Emanuel Moss, Olaitan Awomolo, and Laura Forlano. Participation Is Not a Design Fix for Machine Learning. InProceedings of the 2nd ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization, EAAMO ’22, New York, NY , 2022. ACM. doi: 10. 1145/3...

    2022

  86. [94]

    Position: A Roadmap to Pluralistic Alignment

    Taylor Sorensen, Jared Moore, Jillian Fisher, Mitchell Gordon, Niloofar Mireshghallah, Christo- pher Michael Rytting, Andre Ye, Liwei Jiang, Ximing Lu, Nouha Dziri, Tim Althoff, and Yejin Choi. Position: A Roadmap to Pluralistic Alignment. InProceedings of the 41st Internation...

    2024

  87. [95]

    Physiognomic Artificial Intelligence.Fordham Intellect

    Luke Stark and Jevan Hutson. Physiognomic Artificial Intelligence.Fordham Intellect. Prop. Media Entertain. Law J., 32(4):922–978, 2022. URLhttps://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/iplj/ vol32/iss4/2

    2022

  88. [96]

    Energy and Policy Considerations for Deep Learning in NLP

    Emma Strubell, Ananya Ganesh, and Andrew McCallum. Energy and Policy Considerations for Deep Learning in NLP. InProceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2019, pages 3645–3650, Stroudsburg, PA, 2019. ACL. doi: 10.18653/v1/P19-1355. 23

    2019 doi

  89. [97]

    Participa- tion in the Age of Foundation Models

    Harini Suresh, Emily Tseng, Meg Young, Mary Gray, Emma Pierson, and Karen Levy. Participa- tion in the Age of Foundation Models. InProceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, FAccT ’24, pages 1609–1621, New York, NY , 2024. ACM. doi: 1...

    2024 doi

  90. [98]

    A Case for Soft Loss Functions.Proc

    Alexandra Uma, Tommaso Fornaciari, Dirk Hovy, Silviu Paun, Barbara Plank, and Massimo Poesio. A Case for Soft Loss Functions.Proc. AAAI Conf. Hum. Comput. Crowdsourcing, 8(1):173–177,

  91. [99]

    doi: 10.1609/hcomp.v8i1.7478

    doi

  92. [100]

    Uma, Tommaso Fornaciari, Dirk Hovy, Silviu Paun, Barbara Plank, and Massimo Poesio

    Alexandra N. Uma, Tommaso Fornaciari, Dirk Hovy, Silviu Paun, Barbara Plank, and Massimo Poesio. Learning from Disagreement: A Survey.J. Artif. Intell. Res., 72:1385–1470, 2021. doi: 10.1613/JAIR.1.12752

    2021 doi

  93. [101]

    AI as a Public Good: Ensuring Democratic Control of AI in the Information Space, 2024

    Working Group on Artificial Intelligence and its Implications for the Information and Commu- nication Space. AI as a Public Good: Ensuring Democratic Control of AI in the Information Space, 2024. URLhttps://informationdemocracy.org/wp-content/uploads/ 2024/03/ID-AI-as-a-Public...

    2024

  94. [102]

    Designing Social Choice Mechanisms Using Machine Learning

    Lirong Xia. Designing Social Choice Mechanisms Using Machine Learning. InProceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, AAMAS ’13, pages 471–474, Richland, SC, 2013. IFAAMAS. URLhttps://www.ifaamas.org/ Proceedings/aamas2013/docs...

    2013

  95. [103]

    Practical and Ethical Challenges of Large Language Models in Education: A Systematic Scoping Review.Br

    Lixiang Yan, Lele Sha, Linxuan Zhao, Yuheng Li, Roberto Martinez-Maldonado, Guanliang Chen, Xinyu Li, Yueqiao Jin, and Dragan Ga ˇsevi´c. Practical and Ethical Challenges of Large Language Models in Education: A Systematic Scoping Review.Br. J. Educ. Technol., 55(1):90–112, 20...

    2024 doi

  96. [104]

    Aggregating Crowd Wisdoms with Label- aware Autoencoders

    Li’ang Yin, Jianhua Han, Weinan Zhang, and Yong Yu. Aggregating Crowd Wisdoms with Label- aware Autoencoders. InProceedings of the Twenty-Sixth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-17, pages 1325–1331. IJCAI, 2017. doi: 10.24963/IJCAI.2017/184

    2017 doi

  97. [105]

    Beyond Preferences in AI Alignment

    Tan Zhi-Xuan, Micah Carroll, Matija Franklin, and Hal Ashton. Beyond Preferences in AI Alignment. Philos. Stud., 182(7):1813–1863, 2025. doi: 10.1007/S11098-024-02249-W

    2025 doi

  98. [106]

    Don’t Give Up on De- mocratizing AI for the Wrong Reasons

    Annette Zimmermann, Andrew Zeppa, Srijan Pandey, and Kenneth Diao. Don’t Give Up on De- mocratizing AI for the Wrong Reasons. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems 38, NeurIPS 2025, Red Hook, NY , 2025. Curran Associates. 24

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed May 21, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.