Architecting Trust in Artificial Epistemic Agents

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.02960v1
• Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2026 13:12:33 GMT
• Title: Architecting Trust in Artificial Epistemic Agents
• Authors: Nahema Marchal, Stephanie Chan, Matija Franklin, Manon Revel, Geoff Keeling, Roberta Fischli, Bilva Chandra, Iason Gabriel,
• Abstract summary: We argue that the potential impact of AI agents on practices of knowledge creation, curation and synthesis requires a shift in evaluation and governance of AI.<n>We propose a framework centered on building and cultivating the trustworthiness of epistemic AI agents.<n>This normative roadmap provides a path toward ensuring that future AI systems act as reliable partners in a robust and inclusive knowledge ecosystem.
• Score: 6.054175970982164
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models increasingly function as epistemic agents -- entities that can 1) autonomously pursue epistemic goals and 2) actively shape our shared knowledge environment. They curate the information we receive, often supplanting traditional search-based methods, and are frequently used to generate both personal and deeply specialized advice. How they perform these functions, including whether they are reliable and properly calibrated to both individual and collective epistemic norms, is therefore highly consequential for the choices we make. We argue that the potential impact of epistemic AI agents on practices of knowledge creation, curation and synthesis, particularly in the context of complex multi-agent interactions, creates new informational interdependencies that necessitate a fundamental shift in evaluation and governance of AI. While a well-calibrated ecosystem could augment human judgment and collective decision-making, poorly aligned agents risk causing cognitive deskilling and epistemic drift, making the calibration of these models to human norms a high-stakes necessity. To ensure a beneficial human-AI knowledge ecosystem, we propose a framework centered on building and cultivating the trustworthiness of epistemic AI agents; aligning AI these agents with human epistemic goals; and reinforcing the surrounding socio-epistemic infrastructure. In this context, trustworthy AI agents must demonstrate epistemic competence, robust falsifiability, and epistemically virtuous behaviors, supported by technical provenance systems and "knowledge sanctuaries" designed to protect human resilience. This normative roadmap provides a path toward ensuring that future AI systems act as reliable partners in a robust and inclusive knowledge ecosystem.

Related papers

• A Comprehensive Survey of Self-Evolving AI Agents: A New Paradigm Bridging Foundation Models and Lifelong Agentic Systems [53.37728204835912]
  Most existing AI systems rely on manually crafted configurations that remain static after deployment.<n>Recent research has explored agent evolution techniques that aim to automatically enhance agent systems based on interaction data and environmental feedback.<n>This survey aims to provide researchers and practitioners with a systematic understanding of self-evolving AI agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-10T16:07:32Z)
• Classifying Epistemic Relationships in Human-AI Interaction: An Exploratory Approach [0.6906005491572401]
  This study examines how users form relationships with AI-how they assess, trust, and collaborate with it in research and teaching contexts.<n>Based on 31 interviews with academics across disciplines, we developed a five-part codebook and identified five relationship types.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-02T23:41:28Z)
• The Ultimate Test of Superintelligent AI Agents: Can an AI Balance Care and Control in Asymmetric Relationships? [11.983461426678522]
  The Shepherd Test is a new conceptual test for assessing the moral and relational dimensions of superintelligent artificial agents.<n>We argue that AI crosses an important, and potentially dangerous, threshold of intelligence when it exhibits the ability to manipulate, nurture, and instrumentally use less intelligent agents.<n>This includes the ability to weigh moral trade-offs between self-interest and the well-being of subordinate agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-02T15:53:56Z)
• Toward a Theory of Agents as Tool-Use Decision-Makers [89.26889709510242]
  We argue that true autonomy requires agents to be grounded in a coherent epistemic framework that governs what they know, what they need to know, and how to acquire that knowledge efficiently.<n>We propose a unified theory that treats internal reasoning and external actions as equivalent epistemic tools, enabling agents to systematically coordinate introspection and interaction.<n>This perspective shifts the design of agents from mere action executors to knowledge-driven intelligence systems, offering a principled path toward building foundation agents capable of adaptive, efficient, and goal-directed behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-01T07:52:16Z)
• Advances and Challenges in Foundation Agents: From Brain-Inspired Intelligence to Evolutionary, Collaborative, and Safe Systems [132.77459963706437]
  This book provides a comprehensive overview, framing intelligent agents within modular, brain-inspired architectures.<n>It explores self-enhancement and adaptive evolution mechanisms, exploring how agents autonomously refine their capabilities.<n>It also examines the collective intelligence emerging from agent interactions, cooperation, and societal structures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-31T18:00:29Z)
• AI Automatons: AI Systems Intended to Imitate Humans [54.19152688545896]
  There is a growing proliferation of AI systems designed to mimic people's behavior, work, abilities, likenesses, or humanness.<n>The research, design, deployment, and availability of such AI systems have prompted growing concerns about a wide range of possible legal, ethical, and other social impacts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-04T03:55:38Z)
• Agentic AI Needs a Systems Theory [46.36636351388794]
  We argue that AI development is currently overly focused on individual model capabilities.<n>We outline mechanisms for enhanced agent cognition, emergent causal reasoning ability, and metacognitive awareness.<n>We emphasize that a systems-level perspective is essential for better understanding, and purposefully shaping, agentic AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-28T22:51:32Z)
• Causal Responsibility Attribution for Human-AI Collaboration [62.474732677086855]
  This paper presents a causal framework using Structural Causal Models (SCMs) to systematically attribute responsibility in human-AI systems. Two case studies illustrate the framework's adaptability in diverse human-AI collaboration scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-05T17:17:45Z)
• Approximating Human Models During Argumentation-based Dialogues [4.178382980763478]
  Key challenge in Explainable AI Planning (XAIP) is model reconciliation. We propose a novel framework that enables AI agents to learn and update a probabilistic human model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-28T23:22:18Z)
• Enabling High-Level Machine Reasoning with Cognitive Neuro-Symbolic Systems [67.01132165581667]
  We propose to enable high-level reasoning in AI systems by integrating cognitive architectures with external neuro-symbolic components. We illustrate a hybrid framework centered on ACT-R and we discuss the role of generative models in recent and future applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-13T21:20:17Z)
• AAAI FSS-19: Human-Centered AI: Trustworthiness of AI Models and Data Proceedings [8.445274192818825]
  It is crucial for predictive models to be uncertainty-aware and yield trustworthy predictions. The focus of this symposium was on AI systems to improve data quality and technical robustness and safety. submissions from broadly defined areas also discussed approaches addressing requirements such as explainable models, human trust and ethical aspects of AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-01-15T15:30:29Z)

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.