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