Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Building and Measuring Trust between Large Language Models

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 2508.15858 v1 pith:JV3NYYK2 submitted 2025-08-20 cs.MA cs.AIcs.CL

Building and Measuring Trust between Large Language Models

classification cs.MA cs.AIcs.CL
keywords trustmeasuresllmsexplicitimplicitbuildbuildinglanguage
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

As large language models (LLMs) increasingly interact with each other, most notably in multi-agent setups, we may expect (and hope) that `trust' relationships develop between them, mirroring trust relationships between human colleagues, friends, or partners. Yet, though prior work has shown LLMs to be capable of identifying emotional connections and recognizing reciprocity in trust games, little remains known about (i) how different strategies to build trust compare, (ii) how such trust can be measured implicitly, and (iii) how this relates to explicit measures of trust. We study these questions by relating implicit measures of trust, i.e. susceptibility to persuasion and propensity to collaborate financially, with explicit measures of trust, i.e. a dyadic trust questionnaire well-established in psychology. We build trust in three ways: by building rapport dynamically, by starting from a prewritten script that evidences trust, and by adapting the LLMs' system prompt. Surprisingly, we find that the measures of explicit trust are either little or highly negatively correlated with implicit trust measures. These findings suggest that measuring trust between LLMs by asking their opinion may be deceiving. Instead, context-specific and implicit measures may be more informative in understanding how LLMs trust each other.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Multi-Agent LLMs Fail to Explore Each Other

    cs.MA 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.5

    Modern multi-agent LLM systems fail to explore peers effectively; explicit LinUCB-style peer selection (MACE) cuts regret and lifts task performance, with gains scaling in agent diversity.

  2. Prompt Governance? On Governing Technologies Governed by Natural Language

    cs.CY 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Literature on system prompts for AI shows fragmented and contradictory claims that complicate policy efforts to use them as reliable governance mechanisms.