arXiv AI

Can We Trust AI Agents? A Case Study of an LLM-Based Multi-Agent System for Ethical AI

arXiv AI
Sep 23

Trustworthy Agentic AI: Failure Modes, Mitigation Strategies, and a Lifecycle Framework for Autonomous LLM Systems

The paper discusses the trustworthiness of agentic AI systems built on large language models, highlighting new security and operational risks such as indirect prompt injection, memory contamination, and cross‑session data leakage. It categorizes failure modes, reviews mitigation strategies—including instruction hierarchies, context isolation, and constrained tool use—and introduces the Trustworthy Agent Development Lifecycle (TADL), a six‑phase framework for specification, design, training, evaluation, deployment, and monitoring. The authors note that TADL has not yet been empirically validated but offers a structured foundation for developing more secure and accountable agentic systems, and they call for improved benchmarks and future research priorities.

By Fayeq Jeelani Syed, Rehan Ahmad, Ali Al Bataineh, Aakriti Adhikari
arXiv AI
Aug 18

ETHOS: Towards a Modular Ethics Framework for Clinical Multi-Agent Systems

arXiv:2608. 15424v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The rapid adoption of large language models has enabled the development of clinical multi-agent systems (MAS) capable of integrating multimodal patient data and supporting increasingly complex clinical decision-making.

By Rakesh Sharma, Sydney Pugh, Cameron Beeche, Pankhuri Singhal, Rachel Wu, Margaret Eby, Jeffrey Duda, James Gee, Kyra O'Brien, Hersh Sagreiya, Marina Serper, Victoria Gershuni, Angela Bradbury, Anurag Verma, Eric Eaton, Kevin B. Johnson, Walter Witschey
arXiv AI
Aug 20

Professional Software Developers Don't Vibe, They Control: AI Agent Use for Coding in 2025

The paper titled "Professional Software Developers Don't Vibe, They Control: AI Agent Use for Coding in 2025" examines how experienced developers employ AI agents in software development. Through field observations and surveys, it finds that developers value agents for productivity but maintain control over design and implementation to ensure quality. They use agents as collaborative tools rather than full delegation, selecting tasks based on suitability and leveraging their expertise to guide agent behavior.

By Ruanqianqian Huang, Avery Reyna, Sorin Lerner, Haijun Xia, Brian Hempel
arXiv AI
Sep 25

The Gold in Bias: Maturing the AI Design Process through Verification

The paper proposes rethinking bias in AI as a diagnostic tool rather than merely a flaw to be minimized. It introduces a multidimensional framework that examines bias across origin, lifecycle emergence, technical causes, and validation methods, covering 30 bias types, 16 verification methods, and 20 countermeasures for both traditional and generative AI. The authors present a hierarchical evidence framework distinguishing internal and external validity, and advocate for Ethics by Design principles to embed bias verification throughout the AI development lifecycle.

By Samira Maghool, Paolo Ceravolo
arXiv AI
Sep 12

How AI Coders Discuss, Disagree, and Reach Consensus: Challenges and Opportunities for LLM-Based Qualitative Coding

The paper investigates how large language models (LLMs) can perform multi-coder qualitative coding by independently coding, debating, and reconciling disagreements. It quantifies the effectiveness of this approach across diverse datasets, identifying key factors—such as codebook length, data similarity, and agent disagreement—that influence coding accuracy. The study finds that intense, unresolved debates improve accuracy but that LLMs still lack adaptive responsiveness to context, leading to design recommendations for automated coding systems.

By Jeongyeon Kim, John Mitchell