Human-AI Governance (HAIG): A Trust-Utility Approach

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.01651v1
• Date: Sat, 03 May 2025 01:57:08 GMT
• Title: Human-AI Governance (HAIG): A Trust-Utility Approach
• Authors: Zeynep Engin,
• Abstract summary: This paper introduces the HAIG framework for analysing trust dynamics across evolving human-AI relationships.<n>Our analysis reveals how technical advances in self-supervision, reasoning authority, and distributed decision-making drive non-uniform trust evolution.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: This paper introduces the HAIG framework for analysing trust dynamics across evolving human-AI relationships. Current categorical frameworks (e.g., "human-in-the-loop" models) inadequately capture how AI systems evolve from tools to partners, particularly as foundation models demonstrate emergent capabilities and multi-agent systems exhibit autonomous goal-setting behaviours. As systems advance, agency redistributes in complex patterns that are better represented as positions along continua rather than discrete categories, though progression may include both gradual shifts and significant step changes. The HAIG framework operates across three levels: dimensions (Decision Authority Distribution, Process Autonomy, and Accountability Configuration), continua (gradual shifts along each dimension), and thresholds (critical points requiring governance adaptation). Unlike risk-based or principle-based approaches, HAIG adopts a trust-utility orientation, focusing on maintaining appropriate trust relationships that maximise utility while ensuring sufficient safeguards. Our analysis reveals how technical advances in self-supervision, reasoning authority, and distributed decision-making drive non-uniform trust evolution across both contextual variation and technological advancement. Case studies in healthcare and European regulation demonstrate how HAIG complements existing frameworks while offering a foundation for alternative approaches that anticipate governance challenges before they emerge.

Related papers

• A Survey of Self-Evolving Agents: On Path to Artificial Super Intelligence [87.08051686357206]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong capabilities but remain fundamentally static.<n>As LLMs are increasingly deployed in open-ended, interactive environments, this static nature has become a critical bottleneck.<n>This survey provides the first systematic and comprehensive review of self-evolving agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-28T17:59:05Z)
• Towards Responsible AI: Advances in Safety, Fairness, and Accountability of Autonomous Systems [0.0]
  This thesis advances knowledge in the safety, fairness, transparency, and accountability of AI systems.<n>We extend classical deterministic shielding techniques to become resilient against delayed observations.<n>We introduce fairness shields, a novel post-processing approach to enforce group fairness in sequential decision-making settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-11T21:30:02Z)
• Beyond Explainability: The Case for AI Validation [0.0]
  We argue for a shift toward validation as a central regulatory pillar.<n> Validation, ensuring the reliability, consistency, and robustness of AI outputs, offers a more practical, scalable, and risk-sensitive alternative to explainability.<n>We propose a forward-looking policy framework centered on pre- and post-deployment validation, third-party auditing, harmonized standards, and liability incentives.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-27T06:42:41Z)
• Toward Adaptive Categories: Dimensional Governance for Agentic AI [0.0]
  dimensional governance is a framework that tracks how decision authority, process autonomy, and accountability (the 3As) distribute dynamically across human-AI relationships.<n>A critical advantage of this approach is its ability to explicitly monitor system movement toward and across key governance thresholds.<n>We outline key dimensions, critical trust thresholds, and practical examples illustrating where rigid categorical frameworks fail.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-16T14:43:12Z)
• Do LLMs trust AI regulation? Emerging behaviour of game-theoretic LLM agents [61.132523071109354]
  This paper investigates the interplay between AI developers, regulators and users, modelling their strategic choices under different regulatory scenarios.<n>Our research identifies emerging behaviours of strategic AI agents, which tend to adopt more "pessimistic" stances than pure game-theoretic agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-11T15:41:21Z)
• 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)
• On the Trustworthiness of Generative Foundation Models: Guideline, Assessment, and Perspective [333.9220561243189]
  Generative Foundation Models (GenFMs) have emerged as transformative tools.<n>Their widespread adoption raises critical concerns regarding trustworthiness across dimensions.<n>This paper presents a comprehensive framework to address these challenges through three key contributions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-20T06:20:36Z)
• Fairness in Agentic AI: A Unified Framework for Ethical and Equitable Multi-Agent System [0.0]
  This paper introduces a novel framework where fairness is treated as a dynamic, emergent property of agent interactions.<n>The framework integrates fairness constraints, bias mitigation strategies, and incentive mechanisms to align autonomous agent behaviors with societal values.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-11T04:42:00Z)
• Trustworthiness in Stochastic Systems: Towards Opening the Black Box [1.7355698649527407]
  behavior by an AI system threatens to undermine alignment and potential trust.<n>We take a philosophical perspective to the tension and potential conflict between foundationality and trustworthiness.<n>We propose latent value modeling for both AI systems and users to better assess alignment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-27T19:43:09Z)
• Know Where You're Uncertain When Planning with Multimodal Foundation Models: A Formal Framework [54.40508478482667]
  We present a comprehensive framework to disentangle, quantify, and mitigate uncertainty in perception and plan generation.<n>We propose methods tailored to the unique properties of perception and decision-making.<n>We show that our uncertainty disentanglement framework reduces variability by up to 40% and enhances task success rates by 5% compared to baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-03T17:32:00Z)
• Measuring Value Alignment [12.696227679697493]
  This paper introduces a novel formalism to quantify the alignment between AI systems and human values. By utilizing this formalism, AI developers and ethicists can better design and evaluate AI systems to ensure they operate in harmony with human values.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-23T12:30:06Z)
• End-to-End Learning and Intervention in Games [60.41921763076017]
  We provide a unified framework for learning and intervention in games. We propose two approaches, respectively based on explicit and implicit differentiation. The analytical results are validated using several real-world problems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-26T18:39:32Z)

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.