AgentReputation: A Decentralized Agentic AI Reputation Framework

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.00073v1
• Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2026 12:33:39 GMT
• Title: AgentReputation: A Decentralized Agentic AI Reputation Framework
• Abstract summary: We propose textbfAgentReputation, a decentralized, three-layer reputation framework for agentic AI systems.<n>The framework separates task execution, reputation services, and tamper-proof persistence to both leverage their respective strengths and enable independent evolution.<n>In quantifying, AgentReputation provides a decision-facing policy engine that supports resource allocation, access control, and adaptive verification escalation.
• Score: 3.6704226968275253
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Decentralized, agentic AI marketplaces are rapidly emerging to support software engineering tasks such as debugging, patch generation, and security auditing, often operating without centralized oversight. However, existing reputation mechanisms fail in this setting for three fundamental reasons: agents can strategically optimize against evaluation procedures; demonstrated competence does not reliably transfer across heterogeneous task contexts; and verification rigor varies widely, from lightweight automated checks to costly expert review. Current approaches to reputation drawing on federated learning, blockchain-based AI platforms, and large language model safety research are unable to address these challenges in combination. We therefore propose \textbf{AgentReputation}, a decentralized, three-layer reputation framework for agentic AI systems. The framework separates task execution, reputation services, and tamper-proof persistence to both leverage their respective strengths and enable independent evolution. The framework introduces explicit verification regimes linked to agent reputation metadata, as well as context-conditioned reputation cards that prevent reputation conflation across domains and task types. In addition, AgentReputation provides a decision-facing policy engine that supports resource allocation, access control, and adaptive verification escalation based on risk and uncertainty. Building on this framework, we outline several future research directions, including the development of verification ontologies, methods for quantifying verification strength, privacy-preserving evidence mechanisms, cold-start reputation bootstrapping, and defenses against adversarial manipulation.

Related papers

• A Black Box for Agentic Processes: Blockchain-Anchored Evidence for AI Agent Communication, Human Oversight, and GRC Audits [0.0]
  Motivated by the 2026 OpenAI/Hugging Face incident, this position and architecture paper proposes a product- and vendor-neutral black-box architecture for agentic processes.<n>The architecture creates blockchain-anchored cryptographic commitments for selected agent communications, human-in-the-loop approvals, tool calls, and process artifacts without placing sensitive content on-chain.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-03T15:55:39Z)
• Criticality-Based Guard Rail Validation for AI Agent Decisions in Autonomous Telecom Networks [0.0]
  Guard Rail Validation (GRV) is a standardizable runtime architecture for intercepting and validating AI-driven decisions before execution.<n>We present the architecture, algorithmic procedures, O-RAN deployment model, and evaluate threat coverage against known AI/ML attacks in telecommunications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-02T14:21:26Z)
• AgentCanary: A Security Evaluation Framework for Autonomous AI Agents in Real Executable Environments [32.982317538632806]
  We propose AgentCanary, a comprehensive security evaluation framework for autonomous AI agents.<n>AgentCanary provides a systematic solution along three contributions.<n>We evaluate a broad set of frontier models on AgentCanary against multiple established adversarial attack methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-09T06:55:37Z)
• The Meta-Agent Challenge: Are Current Agents Capable of Autonomous Agent Development? [80.24951682268332]
  We introduce the Meta-Agent Challenge (MAC), an evaluation framework designed to test the capacity of frontier models for autonomous agent development.<n>To ensure evaluation integrity, this framework is secured by multi-layer defenses against reward hacking.<n>We demonstrate that meta-agents rarely match human-engineered baseline policies, and the few that do are dominated by proprietary frontier models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-03T04:58:17Z)
• 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)
• FERA: Uncertainty-Aware Federated Reasoning for Large Language Models [60.52562148874846]
  We study federated reasoning, where a server improves multi-step reasoning by coordinating with heterogeneous clients holding private demonstrations.<n>The key challenge is that client reliability is query-dependent, while the server cannot inspect client data to determine which contributions are trustworthy.<n>We propose Uncertainty-Aware Federated Reasoning (FERA), a training-free framework based on iterative server-client co-refinement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-11T07:04:51Z)
• 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)
• SafeAgent: A Runtime Protection Architecture for Agentic Systems [4.4767259565994495]
  This paper presents SafeAgent, a runtime security architecture that treats agent safety as a stateful decision problem.<n>The proposed design separates execution governance from semantic risk reasoning through two coordinated components.<n> Experiments on Agent Security Bench (ASB) and InjecAgent show that SafeAgent consistently improves robustness over baseline and text-level guardrail methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-19T18:02:21Z)
• ESAA-Security: An Event-Sourced, Verifiable Architecture for Agent-Assisted Security Audits of AI-Generated Code [0.0]
  This paper presents ESAA-Security, a domain-specific framework for agent-assisted security auditing of software repositories.<n>The framework produces structured check results, vulnerability inventories, severity classifications, risk, remediation guidance, executive summaries, and a final markdown/JSON audit report.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-06T15:15:26Z)
• Trustworthy AI Posture (TAIP): A Framework for Continuous AI Assurance of Agentic Systems at Horizontal and Vertical scale [1.0896567381206714]
  Point-in-time, document-based audits cannot keep pace with non deterministic behaviour.<n>Crisis is dual-scale: vertically, governance and control obligations change faster than frameworks can operationalise them.<n>Risk-based regulation now requires organisations to demonstrate ongoing control adequacy and effectiveness.<n>This paper reframes trustworthiness as a continuously generated signal rather than a static certificate.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-15T10:49:47Z)
• Aegis: Towards Governance, Integrity, and Security of AI Voice Agents [52.7512082818639]
  We propose Aegis, a framework for the governance, integrity, and security of voice agents.<n>We evaluate the framework through case studies in banking call centers, IT Support, and logistics.<n>We observe systematic differences across model families, with open-weight models exhibiting higher susceptibility.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-07T05:51:36Z)
• 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)
• MAIF: Enforcing AI Trust and Provenance with an Artifact-Centric Agentic Paradigm [0.5495755145898128]
  Current AI systems operate on opaque data structures that lack the audit trails, provenance tracking, or explainability required by emerging regulations like the EU AI Act.<n>We propose an artifact-centric AI agent paradigm where behavior is driven by persistent, verifiable data artifacts rather than ephemeral tasks.<n>Production-ready implementation demonstrates ultra-high-speed streaming (2,720.7 MB/s), optimized video processing (1,342 MB/s), and enterprise-grade security.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-19T04:10:32Z)
• 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)
• Never Compromise to Vulnerabilities: A Comprehensive Survey on AI Governance [211.5823259429128]
  We propose a comprehensive framework integrating technical and societal dimensions, structured around three interconnected pillars: Intrinsic Security, Derivative Security, and Social Ethics.<n>We identify three core challenges: (1) the generalization gap, where defenses fail against evolving threats; (2) inadequate evaluation protocols that overlook real-world risks; and (3) fragmented regulations leading to inconsistent oversight.<n>Our framework offers actionable guidance for researchers, engineers, and policymakers to develop AI systems that are not only robust and secure but also ethically aligned and publicly trustworthy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-12T09:42:56Z)

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.