发表机构
Florida Institute of Technology; Free University of Bozen-Bolzano（佛罗里达理工学院; 波尔扎诺自由大学）
机构由 AI 辅助整理，请以论文原文为准。AI 中文总结
该研究针对协商民意调查的论证选择问题，提出了基于公开可计算证据、用户持参的可审计规则，经模拟验证其在支持质量等指标上优于不透明排名器，可应用于开源对等平台。
AI 中文摘要
在协商民意调查中，一旦提交的论证数量超过任何人能阅读的上限，就需要某种机制为每位选民选择要查看的论证，这在很大程度上决定了投票结果；实践中，这种选择被委托给不透明的学习排名器，导致选民无法重新计算或质疑影响其投票的论证曝光情况。我们探究是否可以将这种选择制定为基于公开可重新计算证据的已发布规则，且参数由选民持有，将可读性视为可用机制的可接受性条件，而非与准确性权衡的目标。我们针对双极论证集形式化民意调查，依据论证覆盖率、到达顺序和捕获的支持质量来评判论证 slate（论证集合）；给出公民推荐系统的七个可核查标准，以及满足这些标准的规则：由关系权重函数参数化的一跳反向支持流。智能体模拟器在约17000次种子配对运行中记录每次投票的所有论证 slate。所提供的论证 slate 比标签阅读上限低0.035，该上限对包括不透明排名器在内的所有选择过程构成上界：任何无约束排名器的优势均有界且较小。仅在覆盖率方面，对于非退化的作者生成，该规则与随机 slate 无差异，这是因该工具无视顺序、无视善意的零结果；而在另外两个指标上，它在每个前缀处的优势随对抗压力增大而扩大，且在质量上以3.3倍的优势占据主导。当提交的论证中有现实比例无理由时，覆盖率优势会恢复并增长。在权重平坦策略下，标签同质化泛滥会使完整性从0.81降至0.34，而在作者计数归一化下仅降至0.44，这使权重函数成为价值10%完整性的安全控制。排名分支的选择是覆盖率与质量权衡前沿上的立场，而非事实，这类选择只能由可读性规则传递给受影响的个体；该规则可映射到开源对等平台。
英文摘要
In a deliberative poll, once submissions outnumber what anyone will read, some mechanism chooses which arguments each voter sees, acquiring much of the decision; practice delegates it to opaque learned rankers, so a voter cannot recompute or contest the exposure that shaped their vote. We ask whether it can be a published rule over publicly recomputable evidence with parameters held by the voter, treating legibility as an admissibility condition on usable mechanisms, not an objective traded against accuracy. We formalise a poll over bipolar justification sets, judging a slate by reason coverage, the order it arrives in, and captured endorsement mass; we give seven checkable criteria for a civic recommender and a rule meeting them: a one-hop reversed endorsement flow parameterised by a relation-weight function. An agentic simulator records every slate at every vote, over about 17,000 seed-paired runs. Served slates fall 0.035 short of a label-reading ceiling upper-bounding every selection procedure, opaque ones included: any unconstrained ranker's advantage is bounded and small. On coverage alone, with non-degenerate authoring, the rule is indistinguishable from a random slate, a null due to an order-blind, charity-blind instrument; on the other two it leads at every prefix by a margin widening with adversarial pressure and dominates on mass by a factor of 3.3. Once a realistic fraction of submissions carries no reasons, the coverage margin returns and grows. Label-homogeneous flooding collapses completeness from 0.81 to 0.34 under a flat weight policy, only to 0.44 under author-count normalisation, making the weight function a security control worth 10% of completeness. The choice between ranking arms is a position on a coverage-versus-mass frontier, not a fact, the kind of choice only a legible rule can hand to the person it affects. It maps onto an open-source peer-to-peer platform.
