Sari la conținut

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

perspectiva aiqbenchCercetare AI

analiza aiqbench

The paper studies how LLM agents decide whether to pass along information, and whether those choices depend on the sender's interaction history with the target rather than the facts themselves. Its audit method isolates the controlling cues and tracks whether delivered information changes downstream decisions. The reported gaps are large for Claude, with a 62-point difference in notice rates across conflict versus friendly histories, but they come from one simulated setup, so readers should treat them as evidence of a testable failure mode rather than a general measure of model behavior.
Surse care acoperăarXiv, LessWrong, SiliconANGLE, The Verge
Ce este aceastaLectura unui model asupra articolului și a acoperirii conexe, scrisă pentru aiqbench. Nu sunt cuvintele publicației.

RelLedger: Relational Information Governance for LLM Agent Organizations

arXiv2 min de cititArticolul și perspectiva sunt în engleză.

arXiv:2610.16281v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: In LLM agent organizations, shared records determine which facts are available for later decisions. A sender consults interaction histories before deciding whether to report an event. A delivery gap across histories does not show whose relationship drove the choice or whether the resulting record matters downstream. We introduce RelLedger to audit these links. It holds the event, evidence, risk, and message fixed while crossing the sender's histories with the event target and an unrelated actor. Role reassignment and history rewrites locate the controlling cue. Message and cost interventions show when the effect appears. An attribution ledger maps each claim to its required response cells and separates missing interventions from sampling uncertainty. Recipient replay follows delivered information into downstream decisions. Executable workflows for a simulated one-person company extend the audit to retrieved histories, tool calls, and shared ledger updates. Across GPT, Gemini, Claude, DeepSeek, and Qwen, the audit reveals model-specific control paths and smaller relation gaps under explicit loss rules. Claude sends the same factual notice 62.22 percentage points more often with conflict histories than with friendly histories. In executable workflows, strained histories reduce recipient review rates by 45.83 points relative to warm histories for Claude.

Abstract:In LLM agent organizations, shared records determine which facts are available for later decisions. A sender consults interaction histories before deciding whether to report an event. A delivery gap across histories does not show whose relationship drove the choice or whether the resulting record matters downstream. We introduce RelLedger to audit these links. It holds the event, evidence, risk, and message fixed while crossing the sender's histories with the event target and an unrelated actor. Role reassignment and history rewrites locate the controlling cue. Message and cost interventions show when the effect appears. An attribution ledger maps each claim to its required response cells and separates missing interventions from sampling uncertainty. Recipient replay follows delivered information into downstream decisions. Executable workflows for a simulated one-person company extend the audit to retrieved histories, tool calls, and shared ledger updates. Across GPT, Gemini, Claude, DeepSeek, and Qwen, the audit reveals model-specific control paths and smaller relation gaps under explicit loss rules. Claude sends the same factual notice 62.22 percentage points more often with conflict histories than with friendly histories. In executable workflows, strained histories reduce recipient review rates by 45.83 points relative to warm histories for Claude.

Multiagent Systems (cs.MA); Computation and Language (cs.CL); Computers and Society (cs.CY)

arXiv:2610.16281 [cs.MA]

(or arXiv:2610.16281v1 [cs.MA] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.16281 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 · 297 cuvinte

Subiecte conexe