Semantic Laundering in AI Agent Architectures: Why Tool Boundaries Do Not Confer Epistemic Warrant
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent threats, guardrails and governance
Abstract (arXiv)
LLM-based agent architectures systematically conflate information transport mechanisms with epistemic justification mechanisms. We formalize this class of architectural failures as semantic laundering: a pattern where propositions with absent or weak warrant are accepted by the system as admissible by crossing architecturally trusted interfaces. We show that semantic laundering constitutes an architectural realization of the Gettier problem: propositions acquire high epistemic status without a connection between their justification and what makes them true. Unlike classical Gettier cases, this effect is not accidental; it is architecturally determined and systematically reproducible. The central result is the Theorem of Inevitable Self-Licensing: under standard architectural assumptions, circular epistemic justification cannot be eliminated. We introduce the Warrant Erosion Principle as the fundamental explanation for this effect and show that scaling, model improvement, and LLM-as-judge schemes are structurally incapable of eliminating a problem that exists at the type level.
Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Agent threats, guardrails and governance, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 9 of its 20 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 13 Jan 2026.
Builds on
9 of 20 references.
References · 9
- 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,695
- 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,626
- 2023Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Toolscited by 4,182
- 2023G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignmentcited by 2,276
- 2016Concrete Problems in AI Safetycited by 1,642
- 2023Gorilla: Large Language Model Connected with Massive APIscited by 1,332
- 2021Unsolved Problems in ML Safetycited by 292
- 2025Epistemological Fault Lines Between Human and Artificial Intelligencecited by 11
- 2025The Epistemic Suite: A Post-Foundational Diagnostic Methodology for Assessing AI Knowledge Claimscited by 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 4.
4 papers.
- 2026The Responsibility Vacuum: Organizational Failure in Scaled Agent Systemscited by 3
- 2026Silence Is Endorsement: Verification-Status Laundering in LLM Agent Pipelinescited by 1
- 2026AI Space Physics: Constitutive boundary semantics for open AI institutionscited by 0
- 2026Epi-Logic: A Conceptual Framework for Epistemic Runtime Control, Schema Validity Checking, and Controlled Accommodation in Autonomous AI Agentscited by 0
- 2026Epi-Logic: A Conceptual Framework for Epistemic Runtime Control, Schema Validity Checking, and Controlled Accommodation in Autonomous AI Agents21 Sep 2026
- 2026Silence Is Endorsement: Verification-Status Laundering in LLM Agent Pipelines25 Jul 2026
- 2026AI Space Physics: Constitutive boundary semantics for open AI institutions3 Mar 2026
- 2026The Responsibility Vacuum: Organizational Failure in Scaled Agent Systems21 Jan 2026
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026The LLMbda Calculus: AI Agents, Conversations, and Information Flow
- 2025Trustworthy AI in the Agentic Lakehouse: from Concurrency to Governance
- 2026Stored Is Not Supported: Typed Provenance and Assertion Guardrails for Persistent AI Agents
- 2026The Missing Knowledge Layer in Cognitive Architectures for AI Agents
- 2026Trustworthy Agentic AI Requires Deterministic Architectural Boundaries
- 2025Safe, Untrusted, "Proof-Carrying" AI Agents: toward the agentic lakehouse
- 2026Ignorance or Incompetence? Constructing Knowledge-Gated, Verifiable Tasks for LLM Agents
- 2026Retrieval Is Not Enough: Why Organizational AI Needs Epistemic Infrastructure