Quantifying Trust: Financial Risk Management for Trustworthy AI Agents

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.03976v1
• Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2026 05:42:20 GMT
• Title: Quantifying Trust: Financial Risk Management for Trustworthy AI Agents
• Abstract summary: We introduce ARS, a payment settlement standard for AI-mediated transactions.<n>ARS integrates risk assessment, underwriting, and compensation into a single transaction framework.<n>ARS shifts trust from an implicit expectation about model behavior to an explicit, measurable, and enforceable product guarantee.
• Score: 27.23487816533652
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Prior work on trustworthy AI emphasizes model-internal properties such as bias mitigation, adversarial robustness, and interpretability. As AI systems evolve into autonomous agents deployed in open environments and increasingly connected to payments or assets, the operational meaning of trust shifts to end-to-end outcomes: whether an agent completes tasks, follows user intent, and avoids failures that cause material or psychological harm. These risks are fundamentally product-level and cannot be eliminated by technical safeguards alone because agent behavior is inherently stochastic. To address this gap between model-level reliability and user-facing assurance, we propose a complementary framework based on risk management. Drawing inspiration from financial underwriting, we introduce the \textbf{Agentic Risk Standard (ARS)}, a payment settlement standard for AI-mediated transactions. ARS integrates risk assessment, underwriting, and compensation into a single transaction framework that protects users when interacting with agents. Under ARS, users receive predefined and contractually enforceable compensation in cases of execution failure, misalignment, or unintended outcomes. This shifts trust from an implicit expectation about model behavior to an explicit, measurable, and enforceable product guarantee. We also present a simulation study analyzing the social benefits of applying ARS to agentic transactions. ARS's implementation can be found at https://github.com/t54-labs/AgenticRiskStandard.

Related papers

• Capability Minimization as a Safety Primitive: Risk-Aware Causal Gating for Least-Privilege LLM Agents [0.0]
  Risk-Aware Causal Gating (RACG) is a framework that decides whether to act on, defer, or abstain from a model's prediction.<n>RACG models the causal pathway from candidate actions to outcomes and gates each decision according to an estimated counterfactual risk.<n>We show that RACG reduces high-cost errors substantially while preserving most of the utility of an ungated policy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-11T20:19:35Z)
• Towards trustworthy agentic AI: a comprehensive survey of safety, robustness, privacy, and system security [57.35851886874902]
  Agentic AI systems execute complex tasks autonomously, but their multi-step trajectories introduce new failure modes that challenge trustworthiness.<n>This survey provides a focused examination of trustworthy agentic AI through two core dimensions that are critical for high-risk deployments.<n>For each dimension, we clarify key concepts, identify where risks emerge along the agent workflow, and summarize stage-targeted mitigation strategies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-17T10:26:37Z)
• Taming Actor-Observer Asymmetry in Agents via Dialectical Alignment [59.536125286960186]
  Multi-agent frameworks assigning specialized roles are increasingly adopted to enable self-reflection and mutual auditing.<n>We find it simultaneously induces a human-like cognitive bias known as Actor-Observer Asymmetry.<n>ReTAS guides agents to synthesize conflicting viewpoints into an objective consensus.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-21T15:05:58Z)
• Beyond Benchmark Islands: Toward Representative Trustworthiness Evaluation for Agentic AI [45.21562889170875]
  We propose a systematic evaluation paradigm that characterizes agent trustworthiness over a scenario manifold.<n>The framework integrates four complementary components: static cognitive and policy analysis, (ii) interactive sandbox simulation, (iii) social-ethical alignment assessment, and (iv) a distribution-aware representative sampling engine.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-16T08:51:33Z)
• The Why Behind the Action: Unveiling Internal Drivers via Agentic Attribution [63.61358761489141]
  Large Language Model (LLM)-based agents are widely used in real-world applications such as customer service, web navigation, and software engineering.<n>We propose a novel framework for textbfgeneral agentic attribution, designed to identify the internal factors driving agent actions regardless of the task outcome.<n>We validate our framework across a diverse suite of agentic scenarios, including standard tool use and subtle reliability risks like memory-induced bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-21T15:22:21Z)
• Towards Verifiably Safe Tool Use for LLM Agents [53.55621104327779]
  Large language model (LLM)-based AI agents extend capabilities by enabling access to tools such as data sources, APIs, search engines, code sandboxes, and even other agents.<n>LLMs may invoke unintended tool interactions and introduce risks, such as leaking sensitive data or overwriting critical records.<n>Current approaches to mitigate these risks, such as model-based safeguards, enhance agents' reliability but cannot guarantee system safety.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-12T21:31:38Z)
• PropensityBench: Evaluating Latent Safety Risks in Large Language Models via an Agentic Approach [49.14349403242654]
  We present $textbfPropensityBench$, a novel benchmark framework that assesses the proclivity of models to engage in risky behaviors.<n>Our framework includes 5,874 scenarios with 6,648 tools spanning four high-risk domains: cybersecurity, self-proliferation, biosecurity, and chemical security.<n>Across open-source and proprietary frontier models, we uncover 9 alarming signs of propensity: models frequently choose high-risk tools when under pressure.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-24T18:46:44Z)
• Uncertainty-Aware, Risk-Adaptive Access Control for Agentic Systems using an LLM-Judged TBAC Model [11.50995963023462]
  This paper introduces an advanced security framework that extends the Task-Based Access Control (TBAC) model by using a Large Language Model (LLM) as an autonomous, risk-aware judge.<n>This model makes access control decisions not only based on an agent's intent but also by explicitly considering the inherent textbfrisk associated with target resources.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-13T13:52:33Z)
• Co-Investigator AI: The Rise of Agentic AI for Smarter, Trustworthy AML Compliance Narratives [2.7295959384567356]
  Co-Investigator AI is an agentic framework optimized to produce Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) significantly faster and with greater accuracy than traditional methods.<n>We demonstrate its ability to streamline SAR drafting, align narratives with regulatory expectations, and enable compliance teams to focus on higher-order analytical work.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-10T08:16:04Z)
• LLM Agents Should Employ Security Principles [60.03651084139836]
  This paper argues that the well-established design principles in information security should be employed when deploying Large Language Model (LLM) agents at scale.<n>We introduce AgentSandbox, a conceptual framework embedding these security principles to provide safeguards throughout an agent's life-cycle.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-29T21:39:08Z)
• Emergent Risk Awareness in Rational Agents under Resource Constraints [2.69407449467596]
  This work aims to increase understanding and interpretability of emergent behaviours of AI agents operating under survival pressure.<n>We provide theoretical and empirical results that quantify the impact of survival-driven preference shifts.<n>We propose mechanisms to mitigate the emergence of risk-seeking or risk-averse behaviours.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-29T13:31:12Z)
• 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)
• How Far Are LLMs from Believable AI? A Benchmark for Evaluating the Believability of Human Behavior Simulation [46.42384207122049]
  We design SimulateBench to evaluate the believability of large language models (LLMs) when simulating human behaviors. Based on SimulateBench, we evaluate the performances of 10 widely used LLMs when simulating characters.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-28T16:51:11Z)

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.