mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Grading the Narrators: An Isnad-Rijal Framework for Claim-Level Provenance in Multi-Agent Knowledge Systems

arXiv 2607.24117 ↗First posted 27 Jul 2026cs.AI cs.MAcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Modern multi-agent knowledge systems increasingly accumulate knowledge through chains of autonomous transformations rather than direct retrieval. Existing provenance work records what happened - execution traces, tool calls, evidence links - and source-reliability estimation is long established (truth discovery, reputation systems). What is missing is an operational framework that attaches graded, per-domain transmitter reliability to claim-level transmission chains, with completeness semantics, transformation-typed aggregation, decoupled content criticism, and serve/review/quarantine routing. Classical Islamic hadith science confronted a structurally similar problem: deciding whether knowledge transmitted through chains of human narrators should be accepted. Over centuries it developed a rigorous methodology - isnad (a complete transmission chain attached to every claim), rijal (systematic grading of each narrator's integrity and precision), weakest-link chain evaluation, corroboration through independent chains, and matn criticism (content evaluated independently of chain quality). This paper transfers that methodology to AI system design. We contribute a formal mapping from hadith-science concepts to multi-agent pipelines, a relational schema implementing claim chains and a graded narrator registry, a decision matrix combining chain grade with content criticism, and an evaluation on 20,000 claims from real physics textbooks. The evaluation validates weakest-link quarantine and independent-chain corroboration; reports a partial failure of the grade-recovery loop, which missed the highest-fault narrator; and reports two analyses as inconclusive, including a matched-coverage comparison the framework could not reach with the reference content critic. The paper is explicit throughout about which claims the evidence does and does not yet support.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 15 of its 56 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 27 Jul 2026.

Builds on

15 of 56 references.

References · 15

  1. 2018FEVER: a large-scale dataset for Fact Extraction and VERificationcited by 1,375
  2. 2023FActScore: Fine-grained Atomic Evaluation of Factual Precision in Long Form Text Generationcited by 1,282
  3. 2025Mem0: Building Production-Ready AI Agents with Scalable Long-Term Memorycited by 779
  4. 2025Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail?cited by 604
  5. 2024AgentPoison: Red-teaming LLM Agents via Poisoning Memory or Knowledge Basescited by 429
  6. 2021Get Your Vitamin C! Robust Fact Verification with Contrastive Evidencecited by 225
  7. 2024Language agents achieve superhuman synthesis of scientific knowledgecited by 137
  8. 2024ClashEval: Quantifying the tug-of-war between an LLM's internal prior and external evidencecited by 113
  9. 2024ConflictBank: A Benchmark for Evaluating the Influence of Knowledge Conflicts in LLMcited by 73
  10. 2024WikiContradict: A Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs on Real-World Knowledge Conflicts from Wikipediacited by 44
  11. 2025PROV-AGENT: Unified Provenance for Tracking AI Agent Interactions in Agentic Workflowscited by 31
  12. 2015Knowledge-Based Trust: Estimating the Trustworthiness of Web Sourcescited by 21
3 more
  1. 2026Agent-Sentry: Bounding LLM Agents via Execution Provenancecited by 15
  2. 2025An Adversary-Resistant Multi-Agent LLM System via Credibility Scoringcited by 10
  3. 2026The Provenance Paradox in Multi-Agent LLM Routing: Delegation Contracts and Attested Identity in LDPcited by 3

Built on by

Not cited yet.