# RelLedger: Relational Information Governance for LLM Agent Organizations

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.16281 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.16281/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Financial trading and forecasting agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 19 of its 34 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 12 Oct 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Financial trading and forecasting agents](https://mlsanity.com/agents/financial-trading-and-forecasting-agents/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 19 of 19)

- [Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behavior](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.03442/) (2023)
- [Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.13548/) (2023)
- [LongMemEval: Benchmarking Chat Assistants on Long-Term Interactive Memory](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.10813/) (2024)
- [Understanding Social Reasoning in Language Models with Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.15448/) (2023)
- [Hello Again! LLM-powered Personalized Agent for Long-term Dialogue](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.05925/) (2024)
- [Privacy in Action: Towards Realistic Privacy Mitigation and Evaluation for LLM-Powered Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.17488/) (2025)
- [Interaction Context Often Increases Sycophancy in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.12517/) (2025)
- [ConVerse: Benchmarking Contextual Safety in Agent-to-Agent Conversations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.05359/) (2025)
- [CI-Work: Benchmarking Contextual Integrity in Enterprise LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.21308/) (2026)
- [BASIL: Bayesian Assessment of Sycophancy in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.16846/) (2025)
- [Governed Shared Memory for Multi-Agent LLM Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.24535/) (2026)
- [The Trust Paradox in LLM-Based Multi-Agent Systems: When Collaboration Becomes a Security Vulnerability](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.18563/) (2025)
- [In Agents We Trust, but Who Do Agents Trust? Latent Source Preferences Steer LLM Generations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.15456/) (2026)
- [Compared to What? Baselines and Metrics for Counterfactual Prompting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.01048/) (2026)
- [Who Gets Which Message? Auditing Demographic Bias in LLM-Generated Targeted Text](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.17172/) (2026)
- [Pressure, What Pressure? Sycophancy Disentanglement in Language Models via Reward Decomposition](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.05279/) (2026)
- [AgentFairBench: Do LLM Agents Discriminate When They Act?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.16723/) (2026)
- [Affective Context Amplifies Sycophancy in LLM Responses](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.21242/) (2026)
- [Relational Priors as Convergence Pressure in LLM-Based Multi-Agent Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.03239/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

In LLM agent organizations, shared records determine which facts are available for later decisions. A sender consults interaction histories before deciding whether to report an event. A delivery gap across histories does not show whose relationship drove the choice or whether the resulting record matters downstream. We introduce RelLedger to audit these links. It holds the event, evidence, risk, and message fixed while crossing the sender's histories with the event target and an unrelated actor. Role reassignment and history rewrites locate the controlling cue. Message and cost interventions show when the effect appears. An attribution ledger maps each claim to its required response cells and separates missing interventions from sampling uncertainty. Recipient replay follows delivered information into downstream decisions. Executable workflows for a simulated one-person company extend the audit to retrieved histories, tool calls, and shared ledger updates. Across GPT, Gemini, Claude, DeepSeek, and Qwen, the audit reveals model-specific control paths and smaller relation gaps under explicit loss rules. Claude sends the same factual notice 62.22 percentage points more often with conflict histories than with friendly histories. In executable workflows, strained histories reduce recipient review rates by 45.83 points relative to warm histories for Claude.