BoardroomAI treats the human as a persistent participant who can intervene by challenging assumptions, modifying constraints, changing priorities, introducing evidence, or redirecting the decision process in conventional transcript-based multi-agent systems.
Abstract
Organizational decisions are co-created while evidence, constraints, and human priorities continue to evolve. In conventional transcript-based multi-agent systems, humans typically provide an initial problem, agents deliberate internally, and the system returns a final response. BoardroomAI instead treats the human as a persistent participant who can intervene by challenging assumptions, modifying constraints, changing priorities, introducing evidence, or redirecting the decision process. We operationalize this human--agent coexistence through four components: (i) a typed decision graph representing evidence, assumptions, constraints, claims, objections, alternatives, risks, decisions, semantic dependencies, and specialist responsibility; (ii) an intervention compiler that converts confirmed human actions into explicit graph updates; (iii) dependency-aware propagation that identifies affected subgraphs, preserves unaffected artifacts, and selectively reactivates relevant specialists; and (iv) an evaluation framework measuring intervention impact, repair coverage, preservation, recomputation, and decision validity. Across 600 generated decision-DAG interventions, propagation matched exhaustive impact computation while inspecting only 14.59% of nodes. In a 12-case exploratory pilot, selective repair recomputed 62.11% of canonical nodes, preserved all gold-unaffected nodes, and produced valid updated decisions in six cases while abstaining in the remaining six. These abstentions show that correct intervention routing may still provide insufficient context for synthesis, motivating a \emph{decision-sufficient context closure} for human-steered multi-agent deliberation. All results are synthetic and prototype-level.
The Procedural Graph is introduced: just as a knowledge graph organizes factual knowledge into (entity, relation, entity) triplets for what-is questions, a Procedural Graph organizes procedural knowledge into (procedure, relation, procedure) triplets for what-to-do questions.
Yu-Xing Lu, Yi-Cheng Chen, Shan-Chan Wu et al.· 0 citations
This is the first paper from POLIS, an ongoing research programme studying algorithmic institutions for multi-agent systems, and asks which parts of an AI institution produce safety and how they do it.
AI agents increasingly enter practitioner workflows through delegated, multi-step tasks, such as data analysis, document review, coding, and summarization. Existing governance debates tend to emphasize provider-level technical governance, which steers general model behavior, and policy, which defines the boundaries of...
Nick Hagar, Nick Diakopoulos· AI and Ethics· 0 citations
KC-Bench is introduced, a controlled multi-turn benchmark for measuring model-level behavior across world-knowledge conflicts, input inconsistencies, and multi-source temporal conflicts, and provides a reproducible diagnostic for developing conflict-aware reasoning and execution safeguards.
Yaxing Lyu, Sheng-Jie Zhou, B. Toh et al.· 1 citation
This work introduces AgentBound, the first four-way counterfactual generation-and-evaluation framework for tool-using agent safety, and shows that effective agentic alignment requires action decisions to track permission-relevant execution evidence, rather than refusal strength alone.
Tian-Zhuo Yang, Zi-Rui Mi, Yan-Tao Huang et al.· 1 citation
CAIRN is presented, a fact-intent-driven multi-agent paradigm for goal-directed exploration that represents observations and planned investigations as a dynamic directed acyclic graph (DAG) and shows the potential of DAG-guided parallel exploration.
Zu-Yao Xu, Yue-Yang Jia, Jun-Wei Guan et al.· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.