Preregistered Belief Revision Contracts

arXiv cs.AI / 4/20/2026

📰 NewsSignals & Early TrendsIdeas & Deep AnalysisModels & Research

Key Points

  • The paper studies deliberative multi-agent systems where message exchanges and belief revisions can unintentionally cause harmful conformity effects, turning social agreement or prestige into de facto “evidence.”
  • It proposes PBRC (Preregistered Belief Revision Contracts), a protocol mechanism that separates open communication from admissible epistemic updates by requiring preregistered evidence triggers, allowed revision operators, and a strict priority and fallback policy.
  • Under PBRC, non-fallback belief updates are accepted only when they reference a preregistered trigger and include a nonempty witness set of externally validated evidence tokens, making belief changes enforceable and auditable.
  • The authors prove that with evidential contracts and conservative fallback, social-only communication rounds cannot increase confidence or create wrong-but-sure conformity cascades, and they formalize auditable normal forms that preserve belief trajectories and canonical audit traces.
  • They further show token-invariant PBRC behavior depends only on token-exposure traces, connect flooding dissemination to truncated reachability with tight diameter bounds, and provide simulations plus a companion doxastic logic for specifying trace invariants and robustness-liveness trade-offs.

Abstract

Deliberative multi-agent systems allow agents to exchange messages and revise beliefs over time. While this interaction is meant to improve performance, it can also create dangerous conformity effects: agreement, confidence, prestige, or majority size may be treated as if they were evidence, producing high-confidence convergence to false conclusions. To address this, we introduce PBRC (Preregistered Belief Revision Contracts), a protocol-level mechanism that strictly separates open communication from admissible epistemic change. A PBRC contract publicly fixes first-order evidence triggers, admissible revision operators, a priority rule, and a fallback policy. A non-fallback step is accepted only when it cites a preregistered trigger and provides a nonempty witness set of externally validated evidence tokens. This ensures that every substantive belief change is both enforceable by a router and auditable after the fact. In this paper, (a) we prove that under evidential contracts with conservative fallback, social-only rounds cannot increase confidence and cannot generate purely conformity-driven wrong-but-sure cascades. (b) We show that auditable trigger protocols admit evidential PBRC normal forms that preserve belief trajectories and canonicalized audit traces. (c) We demonstrate that sound enforcement yields epistemic accountability: any change of top hypothesis is attributable to a concrete validated witness set. For token-invariant contracts, (d) we prove that enforced trajectories depend only on token-exposure traces; under flooding dissemination, these traces are characterized exactly by truncated reachability, giving tight diameter bounds for universal evidence closure. Finally, we introduce a companion contractual dynamic doxastic logic to specify trace invariants, and provide simulations illustrating cascade suppression, auditability, and robustness-liveness trade-offs.