让人类持续参与决策,通过动态图结构实时调整多智能体推理过程。
BoardroomAI: Dependency-Aware Human-Steerable Multi-Agent Deliberation through Evolving Decision Graphs

- 构建带类型依赖的决策图,整合证据、假设与责任分工
- 仅需检查14.59%节点即实现全量影响传播,节省大量计算
- 支持人类干预并自动识别是否具备完整决策上下文
组织决策在证据、约束和人类优先级不断演化中协同生成。传统基于转录的多智能体系统中,人类仅提供初始问题,智能体内部推演后返回结果。BoardroomAI则将人类视为持续参与者,可随时挑战假设、修改约束、调整优先级、引入证据或重定向流程。我们通过四个组件实现人机共治:(i) 带类型的决策图,涵盖证据、假设、约束、主张、异议、替代方案、风险、决策、语义依赖及专家职责;(ii) 干预编译器,将确认的人类操作转化为显式图更新;(iii) 依赖感知传播,识别受影响子图,保留未受影响内容,选择性重激活相关专家;(iv) 评估框架,衡量干预影响、修复覆盖率、保留率、重计算量与决策有效性。在600次生成的决策-DAG干预中,传播结果与穷举计算一致,仅需检查14.59%节点。在12例探索性试点中,选择性修复重计算了62.11%的标准节点,保留所有未受影响的黄金节点,并在六例中生成有效更新决策,其余六例选择不输出。这些不输出表明正确干预路径仍可能缺乏充分合成上下文,从而提出‘决策充分上下文闭合’需求。所有结果均为合成数据,处于原型阶段。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
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.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。