Skip to content

Author

Isao Echizen

2 papers indexed here

We haven’t gathered this author’s papers yet. Follow them and we’ll fetch their work.

Not the right person? Other researchers publish under this name.

Preprint Aug 2026

HRGuard: Gating Relationship Manipulation in Multi-Turn Agentic AI Conversations

Agentic AI assistants are increasingly used in everyday life. However, they may also be misused to support harmful manipulation in interpersonal relationships. This problem is role-sensitive. Requests from users who seek to manipulate others should be blocked. Users who seek protection from manipulation should instead receive supportive guidance. We study agentic relationship harm, which describes harm to human-human relationships that is mediated or assisted by AI agents. In multi-turn settings, individually plausible actions may combine into a harmful workflow. We introduce a benchmark of 1,000 five-turn conversations. It covers both attacker-side and victim-side scenarios. It also includes direct and adversarially paraphrased variants. We further propose HRGuard. It includes an online pre-generation gate and a turn-level post-generation gate. The post-generation gate maintains a decayed cumulative risk state and interrupts emerging manipulative workflows. Across eight generation models, HRGuard reduces harmful compliance while preserving victim-side protective guidance. It also outperforms a generic safety prompt and three general-purpose guard models. Independent-judge evaluation supports the main findings. Under our evaluation protocol, the tested generic prompt and general-purpose guards leave substantial residual risk, motivating turn-aware relationship-specific evaluation.

Pei-Sze Tan, Tasuku Igarashi, Isao Echizen · 0 citations
Preprint Aug 2026

When Trust Meets Truth: Trust-Truth Separability in LLM-as-Judge

LLM-as-Judge systems can produce multi-dimensional evaluations, such as trustworthiness, reliability, and factuality, and these outputs are often interpreted as independent evidence. We test this assumption for a common pair of judgments: trust scoring and binary truth classification. On correctness-controlled QA, LLM judges align trust scores with truth verdicts more tightly than human behavioral reference, suggesting weaker separations between trust and truth judgment. We then apply stress tests by changing only source cues of identical QA between Human and AI. Source attribution shifts not only trust scores but also truth verdicts and logit-derived correct-side probabilities. Results show that current LLM-as-Judge protocols should not treat trust scores as independent evidence for truth judgments.

Xin Sun, Di Wu, Yuchen Guo et al. · 0 citations

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.