Human-AI Governance (HAIG): A Trust-Utility Approach
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
This paper introduces the Human-AI Governance (HAIG) framework, contributing to the AI Governance (AIG) field by foregrounding the relational dynamics between human and AI actors rather than treating AI systems as objects of governance alone. Current categorical frameworks (e.g., human-in-the-loop models) inadequately capture how AI systems evolve from tools to partners, particularly as foundation models demonstrate emergent capabilities and multi-agent systems exhibit autonomous goal-setting behaviours. As systems are deployed across contexts, agency redistributes in complex patterns that are better represented as positions along continua rather than discrete categories. The HAIG framework operates across three levels: dimensions (Decision Authority, Process Autonomy, and Accountability Configuration), continua (continuous positional spectra along each dimension), and thresholds (critical points along the continua where governance requirements shift qualitatively). The framework's dimensional architecture is level-agnostic, applicable from individual deployment decisions and organisational governance through to sectorial comparison and national and international regulatory design. Unlike risk-based or principle-based approaches that treat governance primarily as a constraint on AI deployment, HAIG adopts a trust-utility orientation - reframing governance as the condition under which human-AI collaboration can realise its potential, calibrating oversight to specific relational contexts rather than predetermined categories. Case studies in healthcare and European regulation demonstrate how HAIG complements existing frameworks while offering a foundation for adaptive regulatory design that anticipates governance challenges before they emerge.
Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 21 of its 114 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 3 May 2025.
Builds on
21 of 114 references.
References · 21
- 2022Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 12,459
- 2022Emergent Abilities of Large Language Modelscited by 2,512
- 2023A Survey on Large Language Model based Autonomous Agentscited by 2,242
- 2023The Rise and Potential of Large Language Model Based Agents: A Surveycited by 1,439
- 2018Model Cards for Model Reportingcited by 1,080
- 2020Closing the AI Accountability Gap: Defining an End-to-End Framework for Internal Algorithmic Auditingcited by 384
- 2023Foundation Models for Decision Making: Problems, Methods, and Opportunitiescited by 164
- 2023Auditing large language models: a three-layered approachcited by 137
- 2019Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AIcited by 135
- 2025Advances and Challenges in Foundation Agents: From Brain-Inspired Intelligence to Evolutionary, Collaborative, and Safe Systemscited by 126
- 2019The relationship between trust in AI and trustworthy machine learning technologiescited by 78
- 2022Human-Algorithm Collaboration: Achieving Complementarity and Avoiding Unfairnesscited by 45
9 more
- 2017Society-in-the-Loop: Programming the Algorithmic Social Contractcited by 35
- 2021Reviewable Automated Decision-Making: A Framework for Accountable Algorithmic Systemscited by 31
- 2023Human-AI Coevolutioncited by 27
- 2021Human-AI Interactions in Public Sector Decision-Making: "Automation Bias" and "Selective Adherence" to Algorithmic Advicecited by 22
- 2024Position: Foundation Agents as the Paradigm Shift for Decision Makingcited by 9
- 2025Relational Norms for Human-AI Cooperationcited by 9
- 2025Adoption of Watermarking for Generative AI Systems in Practice and Implications under the new EU AI Actcited by 7
- 2025The Algorithmic State Architecture (ASA): An Integrated Framework for AI-Enabled Governmentcited by 3
- 2025Regulating Multifunctionalitycited by 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 2; 2026: 2.
4 papers.
- 2025AURA: An Agent Autonomy Risk Assessment Frameworkcited by 4
- 2025Towards Adaptive Categories: Dimensional Governance for Agentic AIcited by 3
- 2026The Dynamic Verifiable Multi-Agent Human Agentic Loyalty Loop (DVM-HALL) Model and the Net Human-Agent Score (NHAS) in Autonomous Commercecited by 0
- 2026Governing Well in the Algorithmic Age: The Foundations of Digital Statecraftcited by 0
- 2026Governing Well in the Algorithmic Age: The Foundations of Digital Statecraft20 Jul 2026
- 2026The Dynamic Verifiable Multi-Agent Human Agentic Loyalty Loop (DVM-HALL) Model and the Net Human-Agent Score (NHAS) in Autonomous Commerce15 Jul 2026
- 2025AURA: An Agent Autonomy Risk Assessment Framework17 Oct 2025
- 2025Towards Adaptive Categories: Dimensional Governance for Agentic AI16 May 2025