Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Can We Trust AI Agents? A Case Study of an LLM-Based Multi-Agent System for Ethical AI

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2411.08881 v2 pith:BW3NK3Z6 submitted 2024-10-25 cs.CY cs.AI

classification cs.CYcs.AI
keywords codeethicscaseissuesprototypesourceagentsbaseline
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

AI-based systems, including Large Language Models (LLM), impact millions by supporting diverse tasks but face issues like misinformation, bias, and misuse. AI ethics is crucial as new technologies and concerns emerge, but objective, practical guidance remains debated. This study examines the use of LLMs for AI ethics in practice, assessing how LLM trustworthiness-enhancing techniques affect software development in this context. Using the Design Science Research (DSR) method, we identify techniques for LLM trustworthiness: multi-agents, distinct roles, structured communication, and multiple rounds of debate. We design a multi-agent prototype LLM-MAS, where agents engage in structured discussions on real-world AI ethics issues from the AI Incident Database. We evaluate the prototype across three case scenarios using thematic analysis, hierarchical clustering, comparative (baseline) studies, and running source code. The system generates approximately 2,000 lines of code per case, compared to only 80 lines in baseline trials. Discussions reveal terms like bias detection, transparency, accountability, user consent, GDPR compliance, fairness evaluation, and EU AI Act compliance, showing this prototype ability to generate extensive source code and documentation addressing often overlooked AI ethics issues. However, practical challenges in source code integration and dependency management may limit its use by practitioners.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Evaluation and Benchmarking of LLM Agents: A Survey

    cs.LG 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A review that proposes a two-dimensional taxonomy for evaluating LLM agents and highlights enterprise-specific evaluation gaps.

Pith tools