Generative Social Choice: The Next Generation
Niclas Boehmer, Sara Fish, Ariel D. Procaccia
Abstract
A key task in certain democratic processes is to produce a concise slate of statements that proportionally represents the full spectrum of user opinions. This task is similar to committee elections, but unlike traditional settings, the candidate set comprises all possible statements of varying lengths, and so it can only be accessed through specific queries. Combining social choice and large language models, prior work has approached this challenge through a framework of generative social choice. We extend the framework in two fundamental ways, providing theoretical guarantees even in the face of approximately optimal queries and a budget limit on the overall length of the slate. Using GPT-4o to implement queries, we showcase our approach on datasets related to city improvement measures and drug reviews, demonstrating its effectiveness in generating representative slates from unstructured user opinions. Our Contributions In our opinion, the framework of Fish et al. [2024] provides a compelling vision for how AI can support democratic innovation. But their implementation is, at this point, largely a proof of concept; there is much more work to do before generative social choice can be put into practice. In this paper, we make progress in this direction by enhancing generative social choice along two distinct dimensions.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext f06f8803-40db-477d-aa0d-a066ff5e2052Cited by top-tier papers3
- Is Your LLM Overcharging You? Tokenization, Transparency, and IncentivesAnder Artola Velasco, Stratis Tsirtsis, Nastaran Okati, Manuel Gomez-RodriguezICML 2026 · 16 citations
- Question the Questions: Auditing Representation in Online Deliberative ProcessesSoham De, Lodewijk Gelauff, Ashish Goel, Smitha Milli et al.WWW 2026 · 1 citation
- CyberJurors: A Multi-Agent Simulation Task for E-Commerce Disputes VerdictYanhui Sun, Wu Liu, Haifeng Ming, Xinru Wang et al.ICML 2026 · 1 citation
Builds on5
- Fine-tuning language models to find agreement among humans with diverse preferencesMichiel A. Bakker, Martin J. Chadwick, Hannah Sheahan, Michael Henry Tessler et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 349 citations
- Proportional Participatory Budgeting with Additive UtilitiesDominik Peters, Grzegorz Pierczynski, Piotr SkowronNeurIPS 2021 · 168 citations
- Neutralizing Self-Selection Bias in Sampling for SortitionBailey Flanigan, Paul Gölz, Anupam Gupta, Ariel D. ProcacciaNeurIPS 2020 · 44 citations
- Supernotes: Driving Consensus in Crowd-Sourced Fact-CheckingSoham De, Michiel A. Bakker, Jay Baxter, Martin SaveskiWWW 2025 · 31 citations
- Representation with Incomplete VotesDaniel Halpern, Gregory Kehne, Ariel D. Procaccia, Jamie Tucker-Foltz et al.AAAI 2023 · 30 citations
Related papers
- To Mask or to Mirror: Human-AI Alignment in Collective ReasoningCrystal Qian, Aaron T. Parisi, Clémentine Bouleau, Vivian Tsai et al.EMNLP 2025 · 1 citation
- Evaluating Large Language Models in Generating Synthetic HCI Research Data: a Case StudyPerttu Hämäläinen, Mikke Tavast, Anton KunnariCHI 2023 · 244 citations
- Benchmarking LLMs for Political Science: A United Nations PerspectiveYueqing Liang, Liangwei Yang, Chen Wang, Congying Xia et al.AAAI 2026 · 5 citations
- Mind the Gap: The Divergence Between Human and LLM-Generated TasksYi-Long Lu, Jiajun Song, Chunhui Zhang, Wei WangAAAI 2026
- Bringing Everyone to the Table: An Experimental Study of LLM-Facilitated Group Decision MakingMohammed Alsobay, David M. Rothschild, Jake M. Hofman, Daniel G. GoldsteinCSCW 2026 · 2 citations
