Sari la conținut

Română · beta. Traducerea a fost făcută automat și este încă în curs de revizuire. Citește pagina în engleză

perspectiva aiqbenchSiguranță AI

analiza aiqbench

This paper addresses the critical safety challenges of graph-agentic RAG systems, specifically how defects in knowledge graph construction can propagate through adaptive controllers to alter consequential outcomes. It proposes an "assurance-by-construction" framework utilizing five interface contracts to explicitly manage provenance, authorization, and recoverability within high-stakes social-good applications. The work is essential for developers building complex agentic workflows that rely on structured evidence and multi-step reasoning.
Sursă care acoperăarXiv
Ce este aceastaLectura unui model asupra articolului și a acoperirii conexe, scrisă pentru aiqbench. Nu sunt cuvintele publicației.

Building Trustworthy Graph-Agentic RAG for Social Good: Architectures, Failure Propagation, and Assurance by Construction

arXiv2 min de cititArticolul și perspectiva sunt în engleză.

arXiv:2609.06391v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Graph-agentic retrieval-augmented generation combines structured evidence with adaptive controllers that can plan retrieval, traverse relations, verify intermediate claims, delegate subtasks, and use tools. This combination is useful when answers depend on relations across documents, entities, time, or institutions, but it also creates coupled failure paths: a defect in graph construction can become retrieved evidence, alter later control decisions, and propagate toward a consequential outcome. We examine how such systems should be designed and evaluated for social-good settings in which freshness, authorization, traceability, oversight, and recourse matter alongside answer quality. We organize the literature by graph substrate, graph lifecycle, agent function, coordination pattern, and authority boundary, and distinguish graph-based retrieval from observation-dependent graph control. We then synthesize reported risks as an evidence-to-action failure chain and propose an assurance-by-construction blueprint comprising five interface contracts for evidence, retrieval, reasoning, capability and delegation, and outcome. These contracts make provenance, temporal validity, authorization, uncertainty, and recoverability explicit at system boundaries. An illustrative public-benefit information design shows how the framework constrains graph structure, permissions, abstention, and operating authority. Finally, we derive an evaluation agenda spanning graph assertions, trajectories, claims, coordination, and outcomes.

Abstract:Graph-agentic retrieval-augmented generation combines structured evidence with adaptive controllers that can plan retrieval, traverse relations, verify intermediate claims, delegate subtasks, and use tools. This combination is useful when answers depend on relations across documents, entities, time, or institutions, but it also creates coupled failure paths: a defect in graph construction can become retrieved evidence, alter later control decisions, and propagate toward a consequential outcome. We examine how such systems should be designed and evaluated for social-good settings in which freshness, authorization, traceability, oversight, and recourse matter alongside answer quality. We organize the literature by graph substrate, graph lifecycle, agent function, coordination pattern, and authority boundary, and distinguish graph-based retrieval from observation-dependent graph control. We then synthesize reported risks as an evidence-to-action failure chain and propose an assurance-by-construction blueprint comprising five interface contracts for evidence, retrieval, reasoning, capability and delegation, and outcome. These contracts make provenance, temporal validity, authorization, uncertainty, and recoverability explicit at system boundaries. An illustrative public-benefit information design shows how the framework constrains graph structure, permissions, abstention, and operating authority. Finally, we derive an evaluation agenda spanning graph assertions, trajectories, claims, coordination, and outcomes.

Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computation and Language (cs.CL)

arXiv:2609.06391 [cs.AI]

(or arXiv:2609.06391v1 [cs.AI] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.06391 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 284 cuvinte

Subiecte conexe