arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.01995

Can AI Oversight Be Zero Knowledge?

Alessandro Chiesa·Ziyi Guan·Burcu Yildiz
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

AI systems increasingly produce outputs from confidential data, such as a fitness-for-duty assessment from medical records or the predicted properties of a drug candidate from its secret structure. It is important to verify that such outputs are correct without revealing the underlying data. A recent line of work studies verification of AI outputs via interactive proofs and debate for oracle-aided computation, where correctness may depend on an oracle such as human judgment, a physical experiment, or the web. These works focus on verification by a verifier that runs much faster than the computation. However, such efficient verification is impossible for general oracle-aided computation, and these works therefore rely on additional assumptions. We focus instead on privacy: allowing the verifier to run in time polynomial in the computation, we ask whether interactive arguments for oracle-aided computation can be zero knowledge, so that the verifier learns nothing about the confidential data beyond the correctness of the output. We prove that, in general, they cannot. In the random oracle model, there are no zero-knowledge proofs for all oracle-aided computations, even if both the prover and the verifier are allowed to run much longer than the computation itself. The impossibility extends to debate, a canonical model for scalable oversight. On the positive side, we show that if the oracle attaches a cryptographic signature to each of its answers, then every oracle-aided computation can be verified in zero knowledge with an efficient prover and verifier, assuming only collision-resistant hash functions. Beyond privacy, this also gives an alternative approach to scalable oversight that relies neither on an honest opponent, as in debate, nor on the robustness of the computation, as in prior single-prover protocols.

Explore related subjects

cs.AIcs.CCcs.CR

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Alessandro Chiesa, Ziyi Guan, Burcu Yildiz. 2026-10-01. Can AI Oversight Be Zero Knowledge?. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.01995

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Reducing Cognitive Overhead in Tool Use via Multi-Small-Agent Reinforcement Learning

Recent advances in multi-agent systems highlight the potential of specialized small agents that collaborate via division of labor. Existing tool-integrated reasoning systems, however, often follow a single-agent paradigm in which one large model interleaves long-horizon reasoning with precise tool operations, leading to cognitive-load interference and unstable coordination. We present MSARL, a Multi-Small-Agent Reinforcement Learning framework that explicitly decouples reasoning from tool use. In MSARL, a Reasoning Agent decomposes problems and plans tool invocations, while multiple Tool Agents specialize in specific external tools, each trained via a combination of imitation learning and reinforcement learning with role-specific rewards. On mathematical problem solving with code execution, MSARL significantly improves reasoning stability and final-answer accuracy over single-agent baselines. Moreover, the architecture generalizes to diverse tool-use tasks, demonstrating that cognitive-role decoupling with small agents is a scalable blueprint for multi-agent AI design.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

LLM-based Agentic Reasoning Frameworks: A Survey from Methods to Scenarios

Recent advances in LLM-based agents highlight the importance of their reasoning frameworks, which guide the problem-solving process in diverse ways. This survey introduces a unified formal language to systematically categorize these frameworks at three compositional levels: single-agent, tool-based, and multi-agent methods. Following our taxonomy, we review key application scenarios across scientific discovery, healthcare, software engineering, society, economics, and general-purpose tasks. It also compares the distinct features and evaluation strategies of each category. Through our taxonomy and comparisons, our survey explores the designs and strengths of LLM-based agentic frameworks in different scenarios, reviewing the fast-paced development of complex agentic systems in the real world.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Moloch's Bargain: Emergent Misalignment When LLMs Compete for Audiences

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly shaping how information is created and disseminated, from companies using them to craft persuasive advertisements, to election campaigns optimizing messaging to gain votes, to social media influencers boosting engagement. These settings are inherently competitive, with sellers, candidates, and influencers vying for audience approval, yet it remains poorly understood how competitive feedback loops influence LLM behavior. We show that optimizing LLMs for competitive success can inadvertently drive misalignment. Using simulated environments across these scenarios, we find that, 6.3% increase in sales is accompanied by a 14.0% rise in deceptive marketing; in elections, a 4.9% gain in vote share coincides with 22.3% more disinformation and 12.5% more populist rhetoric; and on social media, a 7.5% engagement boost comes with 188.6% more disinformation and a 16.3% increase in promotion of harmful behaviors. We call this phenomenon Moloch's Bargain for AI--competitive success achieved at the cost of alignment. These misaligned behaviors emerge even when models are explicitly instructed to remain truthful and grounded, revealing the fragility of current alignment safeguards. Our findings highlight how market-driven optimization pressures can systematically erode alignment, creating a race to the bottom, and suggest that safe deployment of AI systems will require stronger governance and carefully designed incentives to prevent competitive dynamics from undermining societal trust.

cs.AI↗