GAIA: A General Agency Interaction Architecture for LLM-Human B2B Negotiation & Screening

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2511.06262v1
• Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2025 07:41:49 GMT
• Title: GAIA: A General Agency Interaction Architecture for LLM-Human B2B Negotiation & Screening
• Authors: Siming Zhao, Qi Li,
• Abstract summary: We propose GAIA, a governance-first framework for LLM-human agency in B2B negotiation and screening.<n>GAIA defines three essential roles - Principal (human), Delegate (LLM agent), and Counterparty - with an optional Critic to enhance performance.<n>Our contributions are fourfold: (1) a formal governance framework with three coordinated mechanisms and four safety invariants for delegation with bounded authorization; (2) information-gated progression via task-completeness tracking (TCI) and explicit state transitions that separate screening from commitment; and (3) dual feedback integration that blends Critic suggestions with human oversight through parallel learning channels.
• Score: 6.868155877660834
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Organizations are increasingly exploring delegation of screening and negotiation tasks to AI systems, yet deployment in high-stakes B2B settings is constrained by governance: preventing unauthorized commitments, ensuring sufficient information before bargaining, and maintaining effective human oversight and auditability. Prior work on large language model negotiation largely emphasizes autonomous bargaining between agents and omits practical needs such as staged information gathering, explicit authorization boundaries, and systematic feedback integration. We propose GAIA, a governance-first framework for LLM-human agency in B2B negotiation and screening. GAIA defines three essential roles - Principal (human), Delegate (LLM agent), and Counterparty - with an optional Critic to enhance performance, and organizes interactions through three mechanisms: information-gated progression that separates screening from negotiation; dual feedback integration that combines AI critique with lightweight human corrections; and authorization boundaries with explicit escalation paths. Our contributions are fourfold: (1) a formal governance framework with three coordinated mechanisms and four safety invariants for delegation with bounded authorization; (2) information-gated progression via task-completeness tracking (TCI) and explicit state transitions that separate screening from commitment; (3) dual feedback integration that blends Critic suggestions with human oversight through parallel learning channels; and (4) a hybrid validation blueprint that combines automated protocol metrics with human judgment of outcomes and safety. By bridging theory and practice, GAIA offers a reproducible specification for safe, efficient, and accountable AI delegation that can be instantiated across procurement, real estate, and staffing workflows.

Related papers

• Position: Human-Centric AI Requires a Minimum Viable Level of Human Understanding [26.14684888478043]
  This paper argues that prevailing approaches to transparency, user control, literacy, and governance do not define the foundational understanding humans must retain for oversight under sustained AI delegation.<n>To formalize this, we define the Cognitive Integrity Threshold (CIT) as the minimum comprehension required to preserve oversight, autonomy, and accountable participation under AI assistance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-31T18:37:33Z)
• Toward Safe and Responsible AI Agents: A Three-Pillar Model for Transparency, Accountability, and Trustworthiness [0.0]
  This paper presents a conceptual and operational framework for developing and operating safe and trustworthy AI agents.<n>The framework is based on a Three-Pillar Model grounded in transparency, accountability, and trustworthiness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-09T07:27:43Z)
• Making LLMs Reliable When It Matters Most: A Five-Layer Architecture for High-Stakes Decisions [51.56484100374058]
  Current large language models (LLMs) excel in verifiable domains where outputs can be checked before action but prove less reliable for high-stakes strategic decisions with uncertain outcomes.<n>This gap, driven by mutually cognitive biases in both humans and artificial intelligence (AI) systems, threatens the defensibility of valuations and sustainability of investments in the sector.<n>This report describes a framework emerging from systematic qualitative assessment across 7 frontier-grade LLMs and 3 market-facing venture vignettes under time pressure.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-10T22:24:21Z)
• Interact-RAG: Reason and Interact with the Corpus, Beyond Black-Box Retrieval [49.85856484781787]
  We introduce Interact-RAG, a new paradigm that elevates the LLM agent into an active manipulator of the retrieval process.<n>We develop a reasoning-enhanced workflow, which enables both zero-shot execution and the synthesis of interaction trajectories.<n>Experiments across six benchmarks demonstrate that Interact-RAG significantly outperforms other advanced methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-31T15:48:43Z)
• COMPASS: Enhancing Agent Long-Horizon Reasoning with Evolving Context [17.575806280348797]
  Small errors compound across steps, and even state-of-the-art models often hallucinate or lose coherence.<n>We propose a lightweight hierarchical framework that separates tactical execution, strategic oversight, and context organization into three specialized components.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-09T20:14:26Z)
• AdvEvo-MARL: Shaping Internalized Safety through Adversarial Co-Evolution in Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning [78.5751183537704]
  AdvEvo-MARL is a co-evolutionary multi-agent reinforcement learning framework that internalizes safety into task agents.<n>Rather than relying on external guards, AdvEvo-MARL jointly optimize attackers and defenders.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-02T02:06:30Z)
• Never Compromise to Vulnerabilities: A Comprehensive Survey on AI Governance [211.5823259429128]
  We propose a comprehensive framework integrating technical and societal dimensions, structured around three interconnected pillars: Intrinsic Security, Derivative Security, and Social Ethics.<n>We identify three core challenges: (1) the generalization gap, where defenses fail against evolving threats; (2) inadequate evaluation protocols that overlook real-world risks; and (3) fragmented regulations leading to inconsistent oversight.<n>Our framework offers actionable guidance for researchers, engineers, and policymakers to develop AI systems that are not only robust and secure but also ethically aligned and publicly trustworthy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-12T09:42:56Z)
• Information Bargaining: Bilateral Commitment in Bayesian Persuasion [60.3761154043329]
  We introduce a unified framework and a well-structured solution concept for long-term persuasion.<n>This perspective makes explicit the common knowledge of the game structure and grants the receiver comparable commitment capabilities.<n>The framework is validated through a two-stage validation-and-inference paradigm.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-06T08:42:34Z)
• Oversight Structures for Agentic AI in Public-Sector Organizations [0.0]
  We identify five governance dimensions essential for responsible agent deployment.<n>We find that agent oversight poses intensified versions of three existing governance challenges.<n>We propose approaches that both adapt institutional structures and design agent oversight compatible with public sector constraints.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-05T09:57:15Z)
• From Glue-Code to Protocols: A Critical Analysis of A2A and MCP Integration for Scalable Agent Systems [0.8909482883800253]
  Two open standards, Google's Agent to Agent (A2A) protocol for inter-agent communication and Anthropic's Model Context Protocol (MCP) for standardized tool access, promise to overcome the limitations of fragmented, custom integration approaches.<n>This paper argues that effectively integrating A2A and MCP presents unique, emergent challenges at their intersection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-06T16:40:39Z)
• Position Paper: Towards Open Complex Human-AI Agents Collaboration Systems for Problem Solving and Knowledge Management [0.15039745292757667]
  We propose a technology-agnostic, collaboration-ready stance for Human-AI Agents Collaboration Systems (HAACS)<n>Reading empirical patterns through a seven-dimension collaboration spine and human-agent contrasts, we identify missing pieces.<n>We show interoperability with emerging agent protocols without ad hoc glue and sketch bio-cybernetic extensions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-24T05:57:03Z)
• Media and responsible AI governance: a game-theoretic and LLM analysis [61.132523071109354]
  This paper investigates the interplay between AI developers, regulators, users, and the media in fostering trustworthy AI systems.<n>Using evolutionary game theory and large language models (LLMs), we model the strategic interactions among these actors under different regulatory regimes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-12T21:39:38Z)
• SOPBench: Evaluating Language Agents at Following Standard Operating Procedures and Constraints [59.645885492637845]
  SOPBench is an evaluation pipeline that transforms each service-specific SOP code program into a directed graph of executable functions.<n>Our approach transforms each service-specific SOP code program into a directed graph of executable functions and requires agents to call these functions based on natural language SOP descriptions.<n>We evaluate 18 leading models, and results show the task is challenging even for top-tier models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-11T17:53:02Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.