ArXiv TLDR

The Missing Knowledge Layer in AI: A Framework for Stable Human-AI Reasoning

🐦 Tweet
2604.14881

Rikard Rosenbacke, Carl Rosenbacke, Victor Rosenbacke, Martin McKee

cs.AIcs.CYcs.HC

TLDR

This paper introduces a two-layer framework to stabilize human-AI reasoning, addressing LLMs' unreliable outputs and improving trust in high-stakes applications.

Key contributions

  • LLMs produce fluent but often unreliable outputs, leading to human over-trust in critical applications.
  • Proposes a two-layer framework to stabilize human-AI reasoning, starting a five-paper series.
  • Includes human-side mechanisms (uncertainty cues, conflict surfacing) and a model-side Epistemic Control Loop.
  • Aims to make AI reasoning traceable and uncertainty visible, aligning with AI governance standards.

Why it matters

This paper addresses a critical gap in AI: the disconnect between an LLM's fluent output and its actual reliability. By proposing a framework for stable human-AI reasoning, it aims to build trust and enable responsible AI governance in high-stakes domains. This is crucial for aligning with emerging compliance expectations like the EU AI Act.

Original Abstract

Large language models are increasingly integrated into decision-making in areas such as healthcare, law, finance, engineering, and government. Yet they share a critical limitation: they produce fluent outputs even when their internal reasoning has drifted. A confident answer can conceal uncertainty, speculation, or inconsistency, and small changes in phrasing can lead to different conclusions. This makes LLMs useful assistants but unreliable partners in high-stakes contexts. Humans exhibit a similar weakness, often mistaking fluency for reliability. When a model responds smoothly, users tend to trust it, even when both model and user are drifting together. This paper is the first in a five-paper research series on stabilising human-AI reasoning. The series proposes a two-layer approach: Parts II-IV introduce human-side mechanisms such as uncertainty cues, conflict surfacing, and auditable reasoning traces, while Part V develops a model-side Epistemic Control Loop (ECL) that detects instability and modulates generation accordingly. Together, these layers form a missing operational substrate for governance by increasing signal-to-noise at the point of use. Stabilising interaction makes uncertainty and drift visible before enforcement is applied, enabling more precise capability governance. This aligns with emerging compliance expectations, including the EU AI Act and ISO/IEC 42001, by making reasoning processes traceable under real conditions of use. The central claim is that fluency is not reliability. Without structures that stabilise both human and model reasoning, AI cannot be trusted or governed where it matters most.

📬 Weekly AI Paper Digest

Get the top 10 AI/ML arXiv papers from the week — summarized, scored, and delivered to your inbox every Monday.