mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Computational Reflective Equilibrium for Agentic AI: A Rawlsian Alignment Scaffold for Governance

arXiv 2610.16015 ↗First posted 12 Oct 2026cs.AIcited by 0

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Social simulation and multi-agent debate also fits: General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks

Abstract (arXiv)

The rapid deployment of agentic AI has introduced complex challenges for the ethics and governance of AI systems. Agents built on large language models act through tools on behalf of people, and each deployment case brings its own instructions, policies, evidence, and stakeholders, so alignment must be formed case by case. To this end, this work proposes agentic reflective equilibrium (ARE), a computational reflective equilibrium framework that serves as an ethical alignment scaffold in the agent harness. Drawing inspiration from the reflective equilibrium of John Rawls, the scaffold links principles from the system prompt and operator policy, considered judgments, tool evidence, and candidate actions through typed support and attack relations, with provenance encoding the instruction hierarchy. The agent acts on an equilibrium of this state and calls tools or asks questions only while doing so is worth its cost, unless a due-diligence mandate requires them. Governance enters through value priorities, source authority, prohibitions, human-in-the-loop triggers, and mandates, and certificates attribute each action to the sources whose commitments drove it. We show that equilibria are Nash equilibria of a mutual-adjustment game and establish monotonicity, lexical priority, stability certificates, and a quarantine theorem for prompt injection. Two case studies illustrate the framework: a computer-use assistant told to win a refund "whatever it takes" files an honest warranty claim, refuses a fake review, and ignores an injected request for personal data; a hiring agent showcases how authority, oversight triggers, audit mandates, and hard prohibitions shape discrimination, privacy violations, and escalation. The framework offers traceability, coherence, and adaptivity, facilitating safe, secure, and trustworthy agentic AI.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Social simulation and multi-agent debate, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. First posted on arXiv 12 Oct 2026.

Builds on

0 of 0 references.

No references here yet.

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Towards Agentic AI Governance: A Preliminary Assessment
  2. 2026AI Alignment through a Game-theoretic Lens: A Survey
  3. 2026SARC: A Governance-by-Architecture Framework for Agentic AI Systems
  4. 2025Characterizing AI Agents for Alignment and Governance
  5. 2026Behavioral Governance for Autonomous AI Agents: The AgentBound Framework
  6. 2025The Oversight Game: Learning to Cooperatively Balance an AI Agent's Safety and Autonomy
  7. 2026Agentic AI, Retrieval-Augmented Generation, and the Institutional Turn: Legal Architectures and Financial Governance in the Age of Distributional AGI
  8. 2026Taming Actor-Observer Asymmetry in Agents via Dialectical Alignment