Preregistered Belief Revision Contracts

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.15558v1
• Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2026 22:22:54 GMT
• Title: Preregistered Belief Revision Contracts
• Abstract summary: We introduce PBRC (Preregistered Belief Revision Contracts), a protocol-level mechanism that separates open communication from admissible change.<n>A PBRC contract publicly fixes first-order evidence triggers, admissible revision operators, a priority rule, and a fallback policy.<n>We show that auditable trigger protocols admit evidential PBRC normal forms that preserve belief trajectories and canonicalized audit traces.
• Score: 2.28438857884398
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Deliberative multi-agent systems allow agents to exchange messages and revise beliefs over time. While this interaction is meant to improve performance, it can also create dangerous conformity effects: agreement, confidence, prestige, or majority size may be treated as if they were evidence, producing high-confidence convergence to false conclusions. To address this, we introduce PBRC (Preregistered Belief Revision Contracts), a protocol-level mechanism that strictly separates open communication from admissible epistemic change. A PBRC contract publicly fixes first-order evidence triggers, admissible revision operators, a priority rule, and a fallback policy. A non-fallback step is accepted only when it cites a preregistered trigger and provides a nonempty witness set of externally validated evidence tokens. This ensures that every substantive belief change is both enforceable by a router and auditable after the fact. In this paper, (a) we prove that under evidential contracts with conservative fallback, social-only rounds cannot increase confidence and cannot generate purely conformity-driven wrong-but-sure cascades. (b) We show that auditable trigger protocols admit evidential PBRC normal forms that preserve belief trajectories and canonicalized audit traces. (c) We demonstrate that sound enforcement yields epistemic accountability: any change of top hypothesis is attributable to a concrete validated witness set. For token-invariant contracts, (d) we prove that enforced trajectories depend only on token-exposure traces; under flooding dissemination, these traces are characterized exactly by truncated reachability, giving tight diameter bounds for universal evidence closure. Finally, we introduce a companion contractual dynamic doxastic logic to specify trace invariants, and provide simulations illustrating cascade suppression, auditability, and robustness-liveness trade-offs.

Related papers

• One Gate Is Not Enough: Composing Stateful Pre-Action Controls for Agentic AI [0.0]
  We show that a remediation applied by one control can change the action, evidence, or context another control evaluates, invalidating that control's earlier judgment.<n>We formalize this coupling and give a remediate-and-regate protocol that restores per-action soundness in the current bounded, idempotent setting.<n>This is a mechanism demonstration on open payload data with a synthetic metadata layer, not a claim about production prevalence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-18T22:24:44Z)
• From Trajectories to Evidence: Auditable Experimental Records for Industrial Research Agents [47.678562263387214]
  Research agents increasingly conduct multi-round machine-learning experiments in industrial recommendation settings.<n>Yet a completed trajectory is not automatically evidence: generated artifacts may be unsupported or incomplete, executed rounds may be invalid or confounded, and later modifications may obscure earlier findings.<n>We introduce an evidence-grounded framework that couples bounded verification of consequential artifacts with post-execution claim qualification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-05T13:37:38Z)
• ECO/CPO-DAG: A Contradiction-Based Accountability Layer for Adversarial Supply Chains [0.0]
  ECO/CPO-DAG is a domain-specific accountability protocol for adversarial supply chains.<n>It formalizes contradiction detection as a supplemental validation layer.<n>The protocol's boundary is explicit: it detects provable contradictions, not consistent lies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-07T21:03:26Z)
• Trust but Verify: Prover-Verifier Deliberation for Selective LLM Prediction [4.273094752480624]
  We introduce prover-verifier deliberation (PVD), an inference-time protocol grounded in interactive proof theory.<n>PVD produces both an answer and a structured confidence verdict, allowing a system to report high-confidence answers while abstaining on uncertain cases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-24T15:23:27Z)
• Counterfactual Likelihood Tests for Indirect Influence in Private Reasoning Channels [51.56484100374058]
  This paper presents a counterfactual likelihood test for measuring influence between private reasoning channels.<n>The method replaces an upstream private block with a length-matched donor block, holds the public token sequence and downstream target fixed, and measures the downstream target's negative-log-likelihood shift.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-18T20:27:43Z)
• When Verification Fails: How Compositionally Infeasible Claims Escape Rejection [30.404615085122046]
  We show that existing verification benchmarks cannot distinguish between rigorous claim verification and simple salient-constraint reliance.<n>We construct compositionally infeasible claims where the salient constraint is supported but a non-salient constraint is contradicted.<n>We show that different models occupy distinct positions on a shared ROC curve, indicating that the gap between model families reflects differences in verification threshold rather than underlying reasoning ability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-13T04:48:20Z)
• Verify Before You Commit: Towards Faithful Reasoning in LLM Agents via Self-Auditing [5.497064111008921]
  We propose textbfSelf-textbfAudited textbfVerified textbfReasoning (textscSAVeR), a novel framework that enforces verification over internal belief states within the agent before action commitment.<n>Our approach consistently improves reasoning faithfulness while preserving competitive end-task performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-09T16:01:03Z)
• To Throw a Stone with Six Birds: On Agents and Agenthood [0.0]
  Six Birds Theory (SBT) treats macroscopic objects as induced closures rather than primitives.<n>We give a type-correct account of agency within SBT.<n>We operationalize this contract in finite controlled systems using four checkable components.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-03T10:46:23Z)
• Preventing the Collapse of Peer Review Requires Verification-First AI [49.995126139461085]
  We propose truth-coupling, i.e. how tightly venue scores track latent scientific truth.<n>We formalize two forces that drive a phase transition toward proxy-sovereign evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-23T17:17:32Z)
• Gaming the Judge: Unfaithful Chain-of-Thought Can Undermine Agent Evaluation [76.5533899503582]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as judges to evaluate agent performance.<n>We show this paradigm implicitly assumes that the agent's chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning faithfully reflects both its internal reasoning and the underlying environment state.<n>We demonstrate that manipulated reasoning alone can inflate false positive rates of state-of-the-art VLM judges by up to 90% across 800 trajectories spanning diverse web tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-21T06:07:43Z)
• Critical or Compliant? The Double-Edged Sword of Reasoning in Chain-of-Thought Explanations [60.27156500679296]
  We study the role of Chain-of-Thought (CoT) explanations in moral scenarios by systematically perturbing reasoning chains and manipulating delivery tones.<n>Our findings reveal two key effects: (1) users often trust with outcome agreement, sustaining reliance even when reasoning is flawed.<n>These results highlight how CoT explanations can simultaneously clarify and mislead, underscoring the need for NLP systems to provide explanations that encourage scrutiny and critical thinking rather than blind trust.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-15T02:38:49Z)
• VeriLLM: A Lightweight Framework for Publicly Verifiable Decentralized Inference [3.8760740008451156]
  We introduce VeriLLM, a publicly verifiable protocol for decentralized language models (LLMs) inference.<n>VeriLLM combines lightweight empirical rerunning with cryptographic commitments, allowing verifiers to validate results at approximately 1% of the underlying inference cost.<n>We show that VeriLLM achieves reliable public verifiability with minimal overhead.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-29T04:07:32Z)
• Information Bargaining: Bilateral Commitment in Bayesian Persuasion [60.3761154043329]
  We introduce a unified framework and a well-structured solution concept for long-term persuasion.<n>This perspective makes explicit the common knowledge of the game structure and grants the receiver comparable commitment capabilities.<n>The framework is validated through a two-stage validation-and-inference paradigm.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-06T08:42:34Z)
• Evidence Tampering and Chain of Custody in Layered Attestations [0.0]
  In distributed systems, trust decisions are made on the basis of integrity evidence generated via remote attestation. We present algorithms for identifying all such tampering opportunities for given evidence as well as tampering "strategies" by which an adversary can modify incriminating evidence without being detected. Our efforts are intended to help protocol designers ensure their protocols reduce evidence tampering opportunities to the smallest, most trustworthy set of components possible.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-31T21:54:53Z)

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.