Mirror: A Multi-Agent System for AI-Assisted Ethics Review

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.13292v1
• Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2026 03:38:55 GMT
• Title: Mirror: A Multi-Agent System for AI-Assisted Ethics Review
• Authors: Yifan Ding, Yuhui Shi, Zhiyan Li, Zilong Wang, Yifeng Gao, Yajun Yang, Mengjie Yang, Yixiu Liang, Xipeng Qiu, Xuanjing Huang, Xingjun Ma, Yu-Gang Jiang, Guoyu Wang,
• Abstract summary: Mirror is an agentic framework for AI-assisted ethical review.<n>It integrates ethical reasoning, structured rule interpretation, and multi-agent deliberation within a unified architecture.
• Score: 104.3684024153469
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Ethics review is a foundational mechanism of modern research governance, yet contemporary systems face increasing strain as ethical risks arise as structural consequences of large-scale, interdisciplinary scientific practice. The demand for consistent and defensible decisions under heterogeneous risk profiles exposes limitations in institutional review capacity rather than in the legitimacy of ethics oversight. Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) offer new opportunities to support ethics review, but their direct application remains limited by insufficient ethical reasoning capability, weak integration with regulatory structures, and strict privacy constraints on authentic review materials. In this work, we introduce Mirror, an agentic framework for AI-assisted ethical review that integrates ethical reasoning, structured rule interpretation, and multi-agent deliberation within a unified architecture. At its core is EthicsLLM, a foundational model fine-tuned on EthicsQA, a specialized dataset of 41K question-chain-of-thought-answer triples distilled from authoritative ethics and regulatory corpora. EthicsLLM provides detailed normative and regulatory understanding, enabling Mirror to operate in two complementary modes. Mirror-ER (expedited Review) automates expedited review through an executable rule base that supports efficient and transparent compliance checks for minimal-risk studies. Mirror-CR (Committee Review) simulates full-board deliberation through coordinated interactions among expert agents, an ethics secretary agent, and a principal investigator agent, producing structured, committee-level assessments across ten ethical dimensions. Empirical evaluations demonstrate that Mirror significantly improves the quality, consistency, and professionalism of ethics assessments compared with strong generalist LLMs.

Related papers

• The Ethical Compass of the Machine: Evaluating Large Language Models for Decision Support in Construction Project Management [0.38196178521289315]
  This study aims to critically evaluate the ethical viability and reliability of Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>It is one of the first studies to empirically test the ethical reasoning of LLMs within the construction domain.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-02T13:50:36Z)
• Expert Preference-based Evaluation of Automated Related Work Generation [54.29459509574242]
  We propose GREP, a multi-turn evaluation framework that integrates classical related work evaluation criteria with expert-specific preferences.<n>For better accessibility, we design two variants of GREP: a more precise variant with proprietary LLMs as evaluators, and a cheaper alternative with open-weight LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-11T13:08:07Z)
• Multi-Agent LLMs as Ethics Advocates for AI-Based Systems [2.1665689529884697]
  This study proposes a framework for generating ethics requirements by introducing an ethics advocate agent in a multi-agent LLM setting.<n>This agent critiques and provides input on ethical issues based on the system description.<n>We believe this work can facilitate the broader adoption of ethics in the requirements engineering process, ultimately leading to more ethically aligned products.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-11T08:04:32Z)
• The AI Imperative: Scaling High-Quality Peer Review in Machine Learning [49.87236114682497]
  We argue that AI-assisted peer review must become an urgent research and infrastructure priority.<n>We propose specific roles for AI in enhancing factual verification, guiding reviewer performance, assisting authors in quality improvement, and supporting ACs in decision-making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-09T18:37:14Z)
• LLM Ethics Benchmark: A Three-Dimensional Assessment System for Evaluating Moral Reasoning in Large Language Models [8.018569128518187]
  This study establishes a novel framework for systematically evaluating the moral reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs)<n>Our framework addresses this challenge by quantifying alignment with human ethical standards through three dimensions.<n>This approach enables precise identification of ethical strengths and weaknesses in LLMs, facilitating targeted improvements and stronger alignment with societal values.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-01T20:36:19Z)
• 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)
• Towards Responsible AI in Banking: Addressing Bias for Fair Decision-Making [69.44075077934914]
  "Responsible AI" emphasizes the critical nature of addressing biases within the development of a corporate culture. This thesis is structured around three fundamental pillars: understanding bias, mitigating bias, and accounting for bias. In line with open-source principles, we have released Bias On Demand and FairView as accessible Python packages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-13T14:07:09Z)
• Informed AI Regulation: Comparing the Ethical Frameworks of Leading LLM Chatbots Using an Ethics-Based Audit to Assess Moral Reasoning and Normative Values [0.0]
  Ethics-based audits play a pivotal role in the rapidly growing fields of AI safety and regulation. This paper undertakes an ethics-based audit to probe the 8 leading commercial and open-source Large Language Models including GPT-4.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-09T14:57:30Z)
• Unpacking the Ethical Value Alignment in Big Models [46.560886177083084]
  This paper provides an overview of the risks and challenges associated with big models, surveys existing AI ethics guidelines, and examines the ethical implications arising from the limitations of these models. We introduce a novel conceptual paradigm for aligning the ethical values of big models and discuss promising research directions for alignment criteria, evaluation, and method.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-26T16:45:40Z)
• Ethics in conversation: Building an ethics assurance case for autonomous AI-enabled voice agents in healthcare [1.8964739087256175]
  The principles-based ethics assurance argument pattern is one proposal in the AI ethics landscape. This paper presents the interim findings of a case study applying this ethics assurance framework to the use of Dora, an AI-based telemedicine system.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T16:04:59Z)

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.