Towards using Large Language Models for Risk Negotiation and Consensus-building in One Health contexts
Computer Science > Multiagent Systems [Submitted on 12 Sep 2025 (v1), last revised 10 Nov 2026 (this version, v2)]
📌 核心要点
- [Submitted on 12 Sep 2025 (v1), last revised 10 Nov 2026 (this version, v2)]
- From: Alexandra Fetsch [view email][v1] Fri, 12 Sep 2025 00:25:20 UTC (16,739 KB)
- [v2] Tue, 10 Nov 2026 08:49:19 UTC (7,679 KB)
Computer Science > Multiagent Systems
[Submitted on 12 Sep 2025 (v1), last revised 10 Nov 2026 (this version, v2)]
Title:Towards using Large Language Models for Risk Negotiation and Consensus-building in One Health contexts
View PDFAbstract:Risk negotiation under the One Health framework requires balancing competing stakeholder interests across human, animal, and environmental health domains - a process constrained by information complexity and time pressure. This study presents and evaluates a multi-step pipeline that integrates large language model-based agents into a human-supervised negotiation process, specifically targeting risk assessment, valuation, and negotiation steps. Agent descriptions were generated from stakeholder-provided materials using retrieval-augmented generation methods. During preliminary multi-agent discussions, agents accessed domain-specific computational models and web-based sources before human participants refined proposed issues and options. A simulated negotiation game then produced distributions of candidate deals, characterised using Nash bargaining solution criteria and Pareto optimality metrics. The developed approach was evaluated in a workshop involving independent domain experts across two real-world scenarios: food safety criteria for Campylobacter in broiler meat and oak processionary moth management. In this feasibility evaluation, participants reached consensus with the allotted time after discussing and modifying the proposed deals. The framework offers an adaptable blueprint for AI-assisted risk negotiation; the specific contribution of LLM assistance, including gains in efficiency and decision quality, requires comparative evaluation.
Submission history
From: Alexandra Fetsch [view email][v1] Fri, 12 Sep 2025 00:25:20 UTC (16,739 KB)
[v2] Tue, 10 Nov 2026 08:49:19 UTC (7,679 KB)
Additional Features
References & Citations
Loading...
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)
Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article
alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)
CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)
DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)
Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)
Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)
ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)
Demos
Recommenders and Search Tools
Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)
CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)
arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.