The paper introduces a claim‑anchored execution contract that binds a tool‑using agent’s emitted claim to its exact source span, the ordered execution prefix that produced it, and the source version and access state observed. Each receipt contains deterministic anchors, source identifiers, offsets, hashes, quotes, and a domain‑separated execution commitment, allowing a verifier to reconstruct these bindings before semantic or task labels are joined. The contract defines seven independently testable properties and demonstrates high detection rates against cross‑object attacks, with strong performance on conflict‑aware support guard evaluations.
By Miaobo Hu, Shuhao Hu, Xiaobo Guo, Xin Wang, Bokun Wang, Yina Sa, Daren Zha, Jun Xiao
The paper introduces the concept of an epistemic Sybil problem in multi‑agent AI systems, where multiple agents may produce seemingly independent reports that actually stem from the same underlying evidence. It formalizes this issue using information‑theoretic measures and demonstrates through large‑scale experiments that naive aggregation of replicated reports can severely degrade inference accuracy unless the system accounts for shared evidence ancestry and correlated extraction errors. The study shows that aggregators that track evidential dependence rather than merely report multiplicity or similarity achieve better calibration and inference performance.
By Marc Bara
The paper introduces Preregistered Belief Revision Contracts (PBRC), a protocol that separates open communication from admissible epistemic change in deliberative multi-agent systems. PBRC fixes evidence triggers, revision operators, priority rules, and fallback policies, requiring that belief changes cite preregistered triggers and validated evidence tokens. The authors prove that PBRC prevents confidence inflation from conformity, preserves auditability, ensures epistemic accountability, and characterizes enforced belief trajectories under token-invariant contracts.
By Saad Alqithami
Collective intelligence research treats disagreement as evidence of epistemic diversity: if agents express different views, the group should retain capacity to revise. In LLM collectives this proxy can break: agents can produce diverse-looking arguments while preserving the same conclusion.
arXiv:2608. 03722v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Collective intelligence research treats disagreement as evidence of epistemic diversity: if agents express different views, the group should retain capacity to revise.
By Molood Arman
arXiv:2608. 03722v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Collective intelligence research treats disagreement as evidence of epistemic diversity: if agents express different views, the group should retain capacity to revise.
By Molood Arman
arXiv:2610.40906v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Recent scientific agents build knowledge recursively by retrieving evidence, constructing an intermediate state, and judging whether that state contain...
By Lun Ai, Yu-Heng Wu, Jonathan Schaul, Leonie K\"uchenhoff, Denes Turei, Francesco Carli, Fabio Petroni, Aurelien Dugourd, Julio Saez-Rodriguez
The paper introduces ClaimReceipt, a specification and verifier that checks whether a claim in an agent evaluation can be recomputed from retained evidence (sufficiency) and whether the evidence covers the entire experiment set (coverage). Using the CR‑2 verifier on 1,392 historical records, the authors demonstrate accurate reproduction of audit verdicts, non‑redundant field groups, and zero false positives on semantic faults. In a prospective CR‑3 run, the system correctly flags missing receipts and preserves coverage when private evidence is withheld, while adding minimal overhead to inference time and transaction size.
By Peiying Zhu, Sidi Chang
The paper proposes a transparent, user‑configurable rule for selecting arguments in deliberative polls, replacing opaque learned rankers. It formalises argument selection over bipolar justification sets, introduces seven civic recommender criteria, and presents a one‑hop reversed endorsement flow rule that meets them. Experiments on 17,000 simulated runs show the rule performs comparably to random on coverage but outperforms other methods on endorsement mass and robustness under adversarial pressure.
By Muntaser Syed, Markus Zanker, Marius Silaghi
The paper presents a framework for causal attribution in agentic AI systems, outlining estimators and conditions where they fail. It distinguishes between marginal total effects and common‑random‑number total effects, introduces a natural direct effect under pinned downstreams, and derives a coupling method to keep direct effects estimable. The authors also propose a traceability specification to meet upcoming regulatory requirements for high‑risk AI systems.
By Ajay Pravin Mahale (Hochschule Trier)
arXiv:2607. 09689v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Snapshot-backed sandboxes make branching cheap while leaving evidence dependence unchanged.
By Yossi Eliaz
arXiv:2607. 25364v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Tool-using agents expose structured calls but commonly attach free-form rationales.
By Genliang Zhu (Accentrust, Georgia Institute of Technology), Chu Wang (Accentrust, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign)