Do You Trust the Process?: Modeling Institutional Trust for Community Adoption of Reinforcement Learning Policies

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2510.22017v1
• Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2025 20:37:31 GMT
• Title: Do You Trust the Process?: Modeling Institutional Trust for Community Adoption of Reinforcement Learning Policies
• Abstract summary: We develop a trust-aware RL algorithm for resource allocation in communities.<n>We investigate how this incorporation of institutional trust affects outcomes.<n>We find that incorporating trust into RL algorithms can lead to more successful policies.
• Score: 5.661497909491039
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Many governmental bodies are adopting AI policies for decision-making. In particular, Reinforcement Learning has been used to design policies that citizens would be expected to follow if implemented. Much RL work assumes that citizens follow these policies, and evaluate them with this in mind. However, we know from prior work that without institutional trust, citizens will not follow policies put in place by governments. In this work, we develop a trust-aware RL algorithm for resource allocation in communities. We consider the case of humanitarian engineering, where the organization is aiming to distribute some technology or resource to community members. We use a Deep Deterministic Policy Gradient approach to learn a resource allocation that fits the needs of the organization. Then, we simulate resource allocation according to the learned policy, and model the changes in institutional trust of community members. We investigate how this incorporation of institutional trust affects outcomes, and ask how effectively an organization can learn policies if trust values are private. We find that incorporating trust into RL algorithms can lead to more successful policies, specifically when the organization's goals are less certain. We find more conservative trust estimates lead to increased fairness and average community trust, though organization success suffers. Finally, we explore a strategy to prevent unfair outcomes to communities. We implement a quota system by an external entity which decreases the organization's utility when it does not serve enough community members. We find this intervention can improve fairness and trust among communities in some cases, while decreasing the success of the organization. This work underscores the importance of institutional trust in algorithm design and implementation, and identifies a tension between organization success and community well-being.

Related papers

• Foundation Protocol: A Coordination Layer for Agentic Society [78.01727114524464]
  Foundation Protocol (FP) is a graph-first coordination layer for an emerging human-AI society.<n>FP unifies heterogeneous entities, including agents, tools, resources, humans, institutions, and organizations.<n>The aim is to keep autonomous agency composable while keeping accountability non-negotiable.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-22T04:20:35Z)
• Evaluating Cooperation in LLM Social Groups through Elected Leadership [12.51154965291689]
  We present our open-source framework that simulates leadership through elected personas and candidate-driven agendas.<n>Our experiments demonstrate that having elected leadership improves social welfare scores by 55.4% and survival time by 128.6%.<n>This work lays the foundation for further study of election mechanisms in multi-agent systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-13T16:57:11Z)
• I Can't Believe It's Corrupt: Evaluating Corruption in Multi-Agent Governance Systems [8.670200461690454]
  We present evidence that integrity in institutional AI should be treated as a pre-deployment requirement rather than a post-deployment assumption.<n>We evaluate multi-agent governance simulations in which agents occupy formal governmental roles under different authority structures.<n>We score rule-breaking and abuse outcomes with an independent-based judge across 28,112 transcript segments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-19T13:34:54Z)
• Social Welfare Function Leaderboard: When LLM Agents Allocate Social Welfare [87.06241096619112]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly entrusted with high-stakes decisions that affect human welfare.<n>We introduce the Social Welfare Function Benchmark, a dynamic simulation environment where an LLM acts as a sovereign allocator.<n>We evaluate 20 state-of-the-art LLMs and present the first leaderboard for social welfare allocation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-01T17:52:31Z)
• Corrupted by Reasoning: Reasoning Language Models Become Free-Riders in Public Goods Games [87.5673042805229]
  How large language models balance self-interest and collective well-being is a critical challenge for ensuring alignment, robustness, and safe deployment.<n>We adapt a public goods game with institutional choice from behavioral economics, allowing us to observe how different LLMs navigate social dilemmas.<n>Surprisingly, we find that reasoning LLMs, such as the o1 series, struggle significantly with cooperation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-29T15:02:47Z)
• Artificial Intelligence in Government: Why People Feel They Lose Control [44.99833362998488]
  The use of Artificial Intelligence in public administration is expanding rapidly.<n>While AI promises greater efficiency and responsiveness, its integration into government functions raises concerns about fairness, transparency, and accountability.<n>This article applies principal-agent theory to AI adoption as a special case of delegation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-02T07:46:41Z)
• 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)
• Quantitative Insights into Large Language Model Usage and Trust in Academia: An Empirical Study [27.7299835314702]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are transforming writing, reading, teaching, and knowledge retrieval in many academic fields.<n>There is a pressing need to accurately quantify their usage, user trust in outputs, and concerns about key issues to prioritize in deployment.<n>This study surveyed 125 individuals at a private R1 research university regarding their usage of LLMs, their trust in LLM outputs, and key issues to prioritize for robust usage in academia.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-13T20:45:50Z)
• A Safe Harbor for AI Evaluation and Red Teaming [124.89885800509505]
  Some researchers fear that conducting such research or releasing their findings will result in account suspensions or legal reprisal. We propose that major AI developers commit to providing a legal and technical safe harbor. We believe these commitments are a necessary step towards more inclusive and unimpeded community efforts to tackle the risks of generative AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-07T20:55:08Z)
• Do We Run How We Say We Run? Formalization and Practice of Governance in OSS Communities [1.922428808969909]
  This study looks at the Apache Software Foundation Incubator program and 208 projects it supports. We assemble a scalable, semantic pipeline to discover and analyze the governance behavior of projects from their mailing lists. Our findings indicate that while communities observe formal requirements and policies as extensively as they are defined, their day-to-day governance focus does not dwell on topics that see most formal policy-making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-25T16:04:11Z)
• A Trust Framework for Government Use of Artificial Intelligence and Automated Decision Making [0.1527458325979785]
  This paper identifies the challenges of the mechanisation, digitisation and automation of public sector systems and processes. It proposes a modern and practical framework to ensure and assure ethical and high veracity Artificial Intelligence (AI) or Automated Decision Making (ADM) systems in public institutions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-22T06:51:15Z)
• Governing online goods: Maturity and formalization in Minecraft, Reddit, and World of Warcraft communities [0.0]
  Building a successful community means governing active populations and limited resources. This study applies institutional analysis frameworks to 80,000 communities across 3 platforms: the sandbox game Minecraft, the MMO game World of Warcraft, and Reddit. We find that online communities employ similar governance styles across platforms, strongly favoring "weak" norms to "strong" requirements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-02T22:45:21Z)
• 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)

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.