Ties of Trust: a bowtie model to uncover trustor-trustee relationships in LLMs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2506.09632v1
• Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2025 11:42:52 GMT
• Title: Ties of Trust: a bowtie model to uncover trustor-trustee relationships in LLMs
• Authors: Eva Paraschou, Maria Michali, Sofia Yfantidou, Stelios Karamanidis, Stefanos Rafail Kalogeros, Athena Vakali,
• Abstract summary: We introduce a bowtie model for conceptualizing and formulating trust in Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>A core component comprehensively explores trust by tying its two sides, namely the trustor and the trustee, as well as their intricate relationships.<n>We uncover these relationships within the proposed bowtie model and beyond to its sociotechnical ecosystem.
• Score: 1.1149261035759372
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The rapid and unprecedented dominance of Artificial Intelligence (AI), particularly through Large Language Models (LLMs), has raised critical trust challenges in high-stakes domains like politics. Biased LLMs' decisions and misinformation undermine democratic processes, and existing trust models fail to address the intricacies of trust in LLMs. Currently, oversimplified, one-directional approaches have largely overlooked the many relationships between trustor (user) contextual factors (e.g. ideology, perceptions) and trustee (LLMs) systemic elements (e.g. scientists, tool's features). In this work, we introduce a bowtie model for holistically conceptualizing and formulating trust in LLMs, with a core component comprehensively exploring trust by tying its two sides, namely the trustor and the trustee, as well as their intricate relationships. We uncover these relationships within the proposed bowtie model and beyond to its sociotechnical ecosystem, through a mixed-methods explanatory study, that exploits a political discourse analysis tool (integrating ChatGPT), by exploring and responding to the next critical questions: 1) How do trustor's contextual factors influence trust-related actions? 2) How do these factors influence and interact with trustee systemic elements? 3) How does trust itself vary across trustee systemic elements? Our bowtie-based explanatory analysis reveals that past experiences and familiarity significantly shape trustor's trust-related actions; not all trustor contextual factors equally influence trustee systemic elements; and trustee's human-in-the-loop features enhance trust, while lack of transparency decreases it. Finally, this solid evidence is exploited to deliver recommendations, insights and pathways towards building robust trusting ecosystems in LLM-based solutions.

Related papers

• Attention Knows Whom to Trust: Attention-based Trust Management for LLM Multi-Agent Systems [52.57826440085856]
  Large Language Model-based Multi-Agent Systems (LLM-MAS) have demonstrated strong capabilities in solving complex tasks but remain vulnerable when agents receive unreliable messages.<n>This vulnerability stems from a fundamental gap: LLM agents treat all incoming messages equally without evaluating their trustworthiness.<n>We propose Attention Trust Score (A-Trust), a lightweight, attention-based method for evaluating message trustworthiness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-03T07:32:57Z)
• A closer look at how large language models trust humans: patterns and biases [0.0]
  Large language models (LLMs) and LLM-based agents increasingly interact with humans in decision-making contexts.<n>LLMs rely on some sort of implicit effective trust in trust-related contexts to assist and affect decision making.<n>We study whether LLMs trust depends on the three major trustworthiness dimensions: competence, benevolence and integrity of the human subject.<n>We find that in most, but not all cases, LLM trust is strongly predicted by trustworthiness, and in some cases also biased by age, religion and gender.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-22T11:31:50Z)
• Rethinking Trust in AI Assistants for Software Development: A Critical Review [16.774993642353724]
  Trust is a fundamental concept in human decision-making and collaboration.<n>Software engineering articles often use the term 'trust' informally.<n>Without a common definition, true secondary research on trust is impossible.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-16T19:52:21Z)
• Mapping the Trust Terrain: LLMs in Software Engineering -- Insights and Perspectives [25.27634711529676]
  Applications of Large Language Models (LLMs) are rapidly growing in industry and academia for various software engineering (SE) tasks.<n>As these models become more integral to critical processes, ensuring their reliability and trustworthiness becomes essential.<n>The landscape of trust-related concepts in LLMs in SE is relatively unclear, with concepts such as trust, distrust, and trustworthiness lacking clear conceptualizations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-18T00:49:43Z)
• Fostering Trust and Quantifying Value of AI and ML [0.0]
  Much has been discussed about trusting AI and ML inferences, but little has been done to define what that means. producing ever more trustworthy machine learning inferences is a path to increase the value of products.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-08T13:25:28Z)
• When to Trust LLMs: Aligning Confidence with Response Quality [49.371218210305656]
  We propose CONfidence-Quality-ORDer-preserving alignment approach (CONQORD) It integrates quality reward and order-preserving alignment reward functions. Experiments demonstrate that CONQORD significantly improves the alignment performance between confidence and response accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-26T09:42:46Z)
• TrustScore: Reference-Free Evaluation of LLM Response Trustworthiness [58.721012475577716]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities across various domains, prompting a surge in their practical applications. This paper introduces TrustScore, a framework based on the concept of Behavioral Consistency, which evaluates whether an LLMs response aligns with its intrinsic knowledge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-19T21:12:14Z)
• What Large Language Models Know and What People Think They Know [13.939511057660013]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into decision-making processes.<n>To earn human trust, LLMs must be well calibrated so that they can accurately assess and communicate the likelihood of their predictions being correct.<n>Here we explore the calibration gap, which refers to the difference between human confidence in LLM-generated answers and the models' actual confidence, and the discrimination gap, which reflects how well humans and models can distinguish between correct and incorrect answers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-24T22:21:04Z)
• Formalizing Trust in Artificial Intelligence: Prerequisites, Causes and Goals of Human Trust in AI [55.4046755826066]
  We discuss a model of trust inspired by, but not identical to, sociology's interpersonal trust (i.e., trust between people) We incorporate a formalization of 'contractual trust', such that trust between a user and an AI is trust that some implicit or explicit contract will hold. We discuss how to design trustworthy AI, how to evaluate whether trust has manifested, and whether it is warranted.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-15T03:07:23Z)
• Where Does Trust Break Down? A Quantitative Trust Analysis of Deep Neural Networks via Trust Matrix and Conditional Trust Densities [94.65749466106664]
  We introduce the concept of trust matrix, a novel trust quantification strategy. A trust matrix defines the expected question-answer trust for a given actor-oracle answer scenario. We further extend the concept of trust densities with the notion of conditional trust densities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-09-30T14:33:43Z)
• How Much Can We Really Trust You? Towards Simple, Interpretable Trust Quantification Metrics for Deep Neural Networks [94.65749466106664]
  We conduct a thought experiment and explore two key questions about trust in relation to confidence. We introduce a suite of metrics for assessing the overall trustworthiness of deep neural networks based on their behaviour when answering a set of questions. The proposed metrics are by no means perfect, but the hope is to push the conversation towards better metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-09-12T17:37:36Z)

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.