Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2607.23207

Accountable yet Anonymous AI Agents - Split-Knowledge Binding in National Agent-Identity Layer in China

Yifan He·Zhiguang Shan·Le Luo·Wei Wang
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The emerging infrastructure for AI-agent identity has converged, in industry practice and research proposals alike, on a single resolution of the tension between accountability and privacy: make every agent identifiable. We document a national system in China -- built as national infrastructure and scheduled for public launch in Q3 2026 -- that occupies a different and underexplored point in the same design space: an agent is associated with a verified legal principal without that principal being disclosed to any business-layer participant. Re-identification is possible only to a legal authority acting through due process, by separately compelling two distinct government agencies, neither of which can re-identify alone. We name the mechanism split-knowledge binding and are candid that it is conditional: the separation is structural and procedural, not cryptographic, and a state empowered to compel both agencies can re-identify. The paper makes five contributions: (1) split-knowledge binding, an institutional rather than cryptographic separation for escrowed accountability; (2) the ex-post attribution thesis, the argued claim that only attribution-based accountability carries legal force for AI agent actions with legal consequences; (3) the accountability surface, a design concept identifying which agent actions leave identity-bearing traces; (4) a proportionality framework for identity escrow, a decision structure selecting among three trust architectures; and (5) the reflexive jurisdiction method, an evaluative standard administered to the paper's own deployment. The system is evidence of feasibility at national scale; the framework is the instrument by which any deployment -- including this one -- should be judged.

Explore related subjects

cs.CYcs.CR

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Yifan He, Zhiguang Shan, Le Luo, Wei Wang. 2026-07-25. Accountable yet Anonymous AI Agents - Split-Knowledge Binding in National Agent-Identity Layer in China. https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.23207

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Who Should Be Generated? Justifying Demographic Targets in Open-Ended Generation

Fairness evaluation concerns not only what a model produces, but also what its outputs ought to be compared against. When a model generates "a CEO in the United States," the prompt leaves demographic realization to the model. Existing group fairness definitions assume that sensitive attributes are given on the input side. Generative audits instead examine output-side demographic composition, yet the targets they compare it against are typically supplied rather than justified. The upstream question is what the target distribution should be. We formalize this missing-target problem for demographic-value-unspecified generation and decompose target construction into four commitments: the evaluative object, prior admissibility, allocation, and operationalization. In this framework, we admit the geographic prior under a geographic-membership interpretation for the declared public-world use. The occupational prior, under an incumbency interpretation, requires an independently defended objective such as workforce-composition fidelity. Instantiating this construction in AP-Bench, we find substantial distribution divergence from geography-derived targets, ranging from 0.508 to 0.606 on a 0-to-1 scale. Replacing each geography-derived target with an equal-category comparator, while holding generations and measurement fixed, produces model-specific mean absolute cell-level $\mathrm{JSD}_2$ changes ranging from 0.279 to 0.355. Target construction is therefore not a preliminary to fairness evaluation but a component of it. What we supply is not a universal target, but a framework that makes explicit the justification required before a distribution can serve as a fairness standard.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

Anticipatory Human Oversight of Agentic AI: A Philosophical Account

Human oversight is widely held to mitigate the risks of AI systems. Even for systems that produce discrete outputs at identifiable decision points, the realisation of human oversight as a reactive measure is empirically fragile, yet increasingly well understood. However, for agentic AI -- systems that plan, decompose goals, and execute multi-step actions over extended horizons -- reactive oversight reaches its structural limits: intervention on individual actions defeats the autonomy that motivates the deployment, while intervention on aggregate patterns is too coarse for harms whose cumulative consequences only become legible after the fact. This paper argues that reactive oversight must be complemented by an anticipatory mode: oversight exercised before the agent acts, by specifying the normative agenda that structures the space of permissible action and refining it iteratively through specification, runtime, and inspection. The two are complements -- the agenda's escalation conditions specify when reactive intervention is invoked. Drawing on Meaningful Human Control, we read anticipatory oversight as the operationalisation of distal-reason tracking. In addition, we argue that the proposed framework yields a specific responsibility architecture by design: occupying the anticipatory mode is the discharge of a role-grounded prospective obligation, and backward-looking responsibility takes the form of strict moral answerability -- rationalistic, relational, and holding regardless of fault, in virtue of the principal's prior opportunity for precaution. We develop bridging failure modes, address objections including moral luck and the illusion of control, and close with regulatory, architectural, and empirical implications

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

Critical Data Studies in the Anthropocene

This chapter introduces the concept of the Anthropocene into critical data studies, a field that has, for the past decade, explored the entanglements between datafication and politics. With the scaling up of contemporary datafication alongside generative computing, it is essential to expand these debates, both theoretically and methodologically, to consider the logics of extraction and exploitation inherent in the politics of artificial intelligence. Critical data scholars are called to interrogate how dominant narratives around the materiality of contemporary datafication either obscure or reveal its environmental impacts, along other key questions such as who benefits from these logics. To illustrate this, this chapter brings two case studies from Spain and Chile and explores how the infrastructure of contemporary datafication intersects with existing power structures, influencing which social and environmental consequences are recognized, addressed, and neglected. Finally, it invites critical data scholars to keep exploring the politics of data, infrastructure, and the Anthropocene by blending discipline boundaries between science and technology studies, media, geography, and political ecology.

cs.CY↗