The Missing Knowledge Layer in AI: A Framework for Stable Human-AI Reasoning

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.14881v1
• Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2026 11:19:00 GMT
• Title: The Missing Knowledge Layer in AI: A Framework for Stable Human-AI Reasoning
• Abstract summary: Humans exhibit a similar weakness, often mistaking fluency for reliability.<n>This paper is the first in a five-paper research series on stabilising human-AI reasoning.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models are increasingly integrated into decision-making in areas such as healthcare, law, finance, engineering, and government. Yet they share a critical limitation: they produce fluent outputs even when their internal reasoning has drifted. A confident answer can conceal uncertainty, speculation, or inconsistency, and small changes in phrasing can lead to different conclusions. This makes LLMs useful assistants but unreliable partners in high-stakes contexts. Humans exhibit a similar weakness, often mistaking fluency for reliability. When a model responds smoothly, users tend to trust it, even when both model and user are drifting together. This paper is the first in a five-paper research series on stabilising human-AI reasoning. The series proposes a two-layer approach: Parts II-IV introduce human-side mechanisms such as uncertainty cues, conflict surfacing, and auditable reasoning traces, while Part V develops a model-side Epistemic Control Loop (ECL) that detects instability and modulates generation accordingly. Together, these layers form a missing operational substrate for governance by increasing signal-to-noise at the point of use. Stabilising interaction makes uncertainty and drift visible before enforcement is applied, enabling more precise capability governance. This aligns with emerging compliance expectations, including the EU AI Act and ISO/IEC 42001, by making reasoning processes traceable under real conditions of use. The central claim is that fluency is not reliability. Without structures that stabilise both human and model reasoning, AI cannot be trusted or governed where it matters most.

Related papers

• Trustworthy AI Suffers from Invariance Conflicts and Causality is The Solution [80.98492754957466]
  Core trustworthy AI objectives, such as fairness, robustness, privacy, and explainability, are hard to achieve simultaneously.<n>This paper argues that causality is necessary to understand and balance trade-offs in performance and multiple objectives of trustworthy AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-04T14:26:28Z)
• 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)
• AI Knows What's Wrong But Cannot Fix It: Helicoid Dynamics in Frontier LLMs Under High-Stakes Decisions [51.56484100374058]
  Helicoid dynamics is the name given to a specific failure regime in that second domain.<n>System engages competently, drifts into error, accurately names what went wrong, then reproduces the same pattern at a higher level of sophistication.<n>This prospective case series documents that regime across seven leading systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-12T05:25:49Z)
• Stability of AI Governance Systems: A Coupled Dynamics Model of Public Trust and Social Disruptions [0.49157446832511503]
  This paper proposes a rigorous coupled dynamics model that integrates a discrete-time Hawkes process.<n>A key innovation is the bidirectional feedback mechanism: declining trust amplifies the intensity of subsequent controversy events.<n> Numerical experiments reveal how echo chamber network structures and media amplification accelerate governance failure.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-10T12:24:30Z)
• When Visibility Outpaces Verification: Delayed Verification and Narrative Lock-in in Agentic AI Discourse [2.5424331328233207]
  Agentic AI systems-autonomous entities capable of independent planning and execution-reshape the landscape of human-AI trust.<n>This paper investigates the interplay between social proof and verification timing in online discussions of agentic AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-11T22:30:12Z)
• The Persuasion Paradox: When LLM Explanations Fail to Improve Human-AI Team Performance [16.560095082937874]
  We identify a Persuasion Paradox: fluent explanations systematically increase user confidence and reliance on AI without reliably improving, and in some cases undermining, task accuracy.<n>Our findings demonstrate that commonly used subjective metrics such as trust, confidence, and perceived clarity are poor predictors of human-AI team performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-31T20:23:37Z)
• Making LLMs Reliable When It Matters Most: A Five-Layer Architecture for High-Stakes Decisions [51.56484100374058]
  Current large language models (LLMs) excel in verifiable domains where outputs can be checked before action but prove less reliable for high-stakes strategic decisions with uncertain outcomes.<n>This gap, driven by mutually cognitive biases in both humans and artificial intelligence (AI) systems, threatens the defensibility of valuations and sustainability of investments in the sector.<n>This report describes a framework emerging from systematic qualitative assessment across 7 frontier-grade LLMs and 3 market-facing venture vignettes under time pressure.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-10T22:24:21Z)
• The Lock-In Phase Hypothesis: Identity Consolidation as a Precursor to AGI [0.0]
  Large language models (LLMs) remain broadly open and highly steerable.<n>By analogy to human development, we hypothesize that progress toward artificial general intelligence (AGI) involves a lock-in phase.<n>We formalize this phase, link it to known phenomena in learning dynamics, and propose operational metrics for onset detection.<n>Our results reveal a spectrum of outcomes--from performance trade-offs in small models, through largely cost-free adoption in mid-scale models, to transient instabilities in large, quantized models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-23T04:20:10Z)
• Can Large Language Models Express Uncertainty Like Human? [71.27418419522884]
  We release the first diverse, large-scale dataset of hedging expressions with human-annotated confidence scores.<n>We conduct the first systematic study of linguistic confidence across modern large language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-29T02:34:30Z)
• Rationales Are Not Silver Bullets: Measuring the Impact of Rationales on Model Performance and Reliability [70.4107059502882]
  Training language models with rationales augmentation has been shown to be beneficial in many existing works.<n>We conduct comprehensive investigations to thoroughly inspect the impact of rationales on model performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-30T02:39:37Z)
• The Traitors: Deception and Trust in Multi-Agent Language Model Simulations [0.0]
  We introduce The Traitors, a multi-agent simulation framework inspired by social deduction games.<n>We develop a suite of evaluation metrics capturing deception success, trust dynamics, and collective inference quality.<n>Our initial experiments across DeepSeek-V3, GPT-4o-mini, and GPT-4o (10 runs per model) reveal a notable asymmetry.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-19T10:01:35Z)
• 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)
• 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.