analiza aiqbench
This research introduces "participatory provenance," a framework for auditing how AI-generated summaries of public consultations distribute semantic coverage across diverse viewpoints. The study reveals that official summaries often underrepresent critical perspectives on technology oversight and education, demonstrating the need to evaluate distributional fairness alongside factual coherence in democratic engagement processes.
Participatory provenance as representational auditing for AI-mediated public consultation
arXiv:2604.20711v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: AI-assisted consultation can speed large-scale public engagement, but concise summaries may reflect some submissions more closely than others. This paper introduces participatory provenance, a framework for auditing how semantic coverage is distributed from submissions to summary sentences. Applied to two topics in Canada's 2025 AI Strategy consultation (5,253 records; 2,861 participants), official summaries had higher observed mean coverage than exact-length random text, although statistical significance depended on the embedding model. Low coverage concentrated in semantic regions, especially those centered on criticism of educational technology and distrust of technology and oversight, whereas few or no records crossed the operational threshold in several better-covered regions. Same-budget, cross-fitted extractive benchmarks improved mean and lower-tail coverage on held-out submissions, showing that better semantic coverage was feasible without longer summaries. Consultation summaries should be evaluated not only for coherence and factual support, but also for how coverage is distributed across the range of submitted views.
Abstract:AI-assisted consultation can speed large-scale public engagement, but concise summaries may reflect some submissions more closely than others. This paper introduces participatory provenance, a framework for auditing how semantic coverage is distributed from submissions to summary sentences. Applied to two topics in Canada's 2025 AI Strategy consultation (5,253 records; 2,861 participants), official summaries had higher observed mean coverage than exact-length random text, although statistical significance depended on the embedding model. Low coverage concentrated in semantic regions, especially those centered on criticism of educational technology and distrust of technology and oversight, whereas few or no records crossed the operational threshold in several better-covered regions. Same-budget, cross-fitted extractive benchmarks improved mean and lower-tail coverage on held-out submissions, showing that better semantic coverage was feasible without longer summaries. Consultation summaries should be evaluated not only for coherence and factual support, but also for how coverage is distributed across the range of submitted views.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Human-Computer Interaction (cs.HC)
arXiv:2604.20711 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2604.20711v3 [cs.AI] for this version)
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 164 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe
State of the Field: AI for Epistemics and Coordination
LessWrong · 2 oct. 2026

Underwriting Superintelligence: Backing Agents you can Sue — Rune Kvist, AIUC
Latent Space · 16 sept. 2026

Game-Theoretic Disempowerment: Loss of Control to Agencyless AI
LessWrong · 27 sept. 2026
A Red Line and Oversight Framework for Government AI Contracts
AI Alignment Forum · 18 iul. 2026