BoardroomAI: Dependency-Aware Human-Steerable Multi-Agent Deliberation through Evolving Decision Graphs
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
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 decision-sufficient context closure for human-steered multi-agent deliberation. All results are synthetic and prototype-level.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 11 of its 26 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 13 Aug 2026.
Builds on
11 of 26 references.
References · 11
- 2023Improving Factuality and Reasoning in Language Models through Multiagent Debatecited by 1,784
- 2020Does the Whole Exceed its Parts? The Effect of AI Explanations on Complementary Team Performancecited by 399
- 2024Rethinking the Bounds of LLM Reasoning: Are Multi-Agent Discussions the Key?cited by 159
- 2023Examining Inter-Consistency of Large Language Models Collaboration: An In-depth Analysis via Debatecited by 97
- 2023Appropriate Reliance on AI Advice: Conceptualization and the Effect of Explanationscited by 83
- 2022Designing Creative AI Partners with COFI: A Framework for Modeling Interaction in Human-AI Co-Creative Systemscited by 59
- 2024Towards Human-AI Deliberation: Design and Evaluation of LLM-Empowered Deliberative AI for AI-Assisted Decision-Makingcited by 38
- 2023An Ontology of Co-Creative AI Systemscited by 7
- 2026From Debate to Deliberation: Structured Collective Reasoning with Typed Epistemic Actscited by 3
- 2026Grounded Continuation: A Linear-Time Runtime Verifier for LLM Conversationscited by 3
- 2026LEDGER: Scaling Agentic Document Editing with Dependency-aware Graph Retrievalcited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.