Agency-Risk Index (ARI) Overview

• Agency-Risk Index (ARI) is a composite metric assessing risk by integrating human and machine agency, trust, regulation, and perceived risk in socio-technical systems.
• It combines methodologies from social science, AI safety, and mathematical finance to evaluate system resilience and predict long-term autonomy impacts.
• ARI has practical applications in crisis communication and digital epidemiology, providing actionable insights for risk governance and agentic AI evaluation.

The Agency-Risk Index (ARI) is a conceptual and emerging quantitative metric designed to assess, compare, and benchmark the risk profile arising from the interplay of agency, trust, regulation, and perceived risk in socio-technical systems, especially human-machine networks (HMNs), agentic AI systems, and decision environments characterized by uncertainty. ARI integrates constructs from social science, AI safety, regulatory studies, and mathematical finance, acting as a composite function that increases with perceived risk but decreases with human agency, machine agency, and trust. Its conceptual foundation enables rigorous evaluation of system health, resilience, and long-term autonomy impact, bridging subjective experience with objective risk measures.

1. Conceptual Foundations

The ARI framework originates in models of human-machine networks that foreground the relationships among agency, perceived risk, regulation, trust, and self-efficacy (Pickering et al., 2017). Agency in this context is bifurcated into human agency—the capacity for intentional action—and machine agency, defined by the functional autonomy afforded by algorithms and decision-support systems.

Perceived risk is prioritized over objective or statistical risk, emphasizing the individual’s internal estimation of privacy, security, and overall hazard in the face of machine-supported decisions or actions. Regulation acts simultaneously as a risk mitigator (lowering subjective risk via safeguards) and as a potential constraint on both forms of agency. Trust, emerging as a mediator between risk perception and behavior, influences the degree to which users engage or disengage within the network.

The ARI is theoretically positioned as a multivariate function:

$$\text{ARI} = f(\text{Perceived Risk}, \text{Regulation}, \text{Human Agency}, \text{Machine Agency}, \text{Trust}, \text{Self-efficacy}, \text{Social Norms})$$

In a stylized model, user behavior $B$ is expressed as:

$$B = \alpha + \beta_1 \cdot (\text{Human Agency}) + \beta_2 \cdot (\text{Machine Agency}) + \beta_3 \cdot (\text{Trust}) - \beta_4 \cdot (\text{Perceived Risk}) + \beta_5 \cdot (\text{Regulation}) + \beta_6 \cdot (\text{Self-efficacy}) + \beta_7 \cdot (\text{Social Norms}) + \epsilon$$

where the sign and magnitude of coefficients encode empirically observed influences on engagement and decision-making.

2. Agency Preservation and Long-Term Risk

Recent work in AI safety highlights agency preservation as a critical dimension in risk metrics. Agency-preserving interaction is formally defined as one in which the AI system evaluates its actions for their impact on the future capacity of a human to form, update, and pursue intentions (Mitelut et al., 2023). The index thus extends beyond mere intent alignment: it is explicitly forward-looking, quantifying agency loss, $\Delta \text{Agency}$, as:

$$\Delta \text{Agency} = U(H_{\text{future}}) - U(H_{\text{present}})$$

where $U(\cdot)$ is a utility function over “state of human agency” $H_t$ and $a_t$ denotes the AI’s action at time $t$.

Mechanisms of agency loss include temporal-difference learning, where optimization for short-term rewards or intent alignment steers users into locally desirable but globally constraining behavior. The ARI is thus positioned as a holistic metric for the cumulative risk that intelligent systems pose to long-term human autonomy in both individual and societal aggregates.

3. Local and Objective Risk Indices: Mathematical Parallels

In short-term investment contexts, risk indices such as variance-to-mean and inverse Sharpe ratios offer agent-independent local rankings based solely on drift and volatility (Heller et al., 2020). For stochastic returns modeled by

$dg_t = \mu_t dt + \sigma_t dW_t,$

the relevant indices are:

• Variance-to-mean: $Q_{VM}^l(g) = \frac{\sigma_0^2}{\mu_0}$
• Inverse Sharpe: $Q_{IS}^l(g) = \frac{\sigma_0}{\mu_0}$
• Standard deviation: $Q_{SD}^l(g) = \sigma_0$

These indices unify capital allocation, certainty equivalent, and risk premium decisions. While not a direct instantiation of ARI, this mathematical structure suggests that in sufficiently local regimes, ARI (or its analogues) might reduce to transformations of these moment-based metrics. For high-frequency domains with continuous, jump-free returns, the complexity of full-distribution risk measures recedes, and local indices adequately capture the agent-independent risk ordering.

4. Applications in Agency-Level Risk Communication

In public health and crisis communication, ARI-related models have been employed for agency-level analysis of risk messages disseminated over social media (Ahmed et al., 2020). An example is digital epidemiology during COVID-19, where agencies (WHO, CDC, FEMA, FDOT) broadcast domain-specific and generalized risk information. Temporal topic mining and sentiment analysis on 8,600 tweets correlated the dynamics of agency susceptibility with outbreak indicators, demonstrating that finely tuned risk communication—monitored via infographics and dynamic topic models—can flatten epidemic curves and optimize timing of lockdown and reopening.

The model equations involved, derived from dynamic topic modeling (DTM), tie together agency communication evolution:

• Topic parameters: $$B_t | B_{t-1} \sim \mathcal{N}(B_{t-1}, \sigma^2 I)$$
• Topic proportions: $$\alpha_t | \alpha_{t-1} \sim \mathcal{N}(\alpha_{t-1}, \sigma^2 I)$$

This application illustrates the use of ARI as a diagnostic for systemic resilience, message efficacy, and adaptive calibration of risk perception at the population level.

5. Documentation, Evaluation, and Governance in Agentic Systems

The AI Agent Index provides structured documentation of deployed agentic AI systems—a precursor infrastructure for operationalizing ARI in practice (Casper et al., 3 Feb 2025). Each system is evaluated on technical components, application domains, and risk management practices:

• 33 documentation fields per system (e.g., backend model, reasoning/planning implementation, observation/action space).
• Application domains cover software engineering, computer use, general purpose, research, and robotics.
• Risk management practices: safety policy (19.4% disclosed), external evaluation (<10%), guardrails (usage restrictions, monitoring, shutdown procedures).

While technical and application features are amply recorded, there is a notable lack of detailed reporting on safety and risk management, underscoring current deficiencies in ARI-relevant transparency. The agent card framework and strategies for incentivizing detailed disclosure serve as blueprints for standardizing ARI measurement and reporting.

6. Future Directions and Open Research Questions

Current ARI conceptualizations are models-in-progress, with research emphasizing the need for foundational expansions:

• Benevolent game theory: Modeling AI-human interactions for mutual benefit under agency preservation constraints (Mitelut et al., 2023).
• Algorithmic foundations of human rights: Computational metrics for rights including agency, serving as quantifiers for ARI.
• Mechanistic interpretability: Opening neural networks for tracing the representation of agency and agency-loss risk.
• Reinforcement learning from internal states: Rethinking reward paradigms to prioritize long-term autonomy in agent design.

Integral to these directions is the development of standard mathematical formalizations, empirical benchmarks, and regulatory protocols that translate ARI from abstract metric to actionable policy instrument.

7. Limitations and Challenges

The ARI, while theoretically broad, faces significant implementation challenges:

• Perceived risk is inherently subjective and may diverge substantially across demographic, social, or epistemic lines.
• Higher-order effects and tail risks are not uniformly captured, particularly outside local or continuous regimes (Heller et al., 2020).
• Agency preservation requires not only technical monitoring but continuous adaptation in adversarial environments.
• Documentation standards, as exemplified in the AI Agent Index, remain inconsistent, limiting comparative and longitudinal analysis.

A plausible implication is that further development of the ARI will require joint progress in empirical social science, technical system auditing, and normative frameworks for both human and machine agency.

---

In summary, the Agency-Risk Index (ARI) ties together multidimensional constructs—agency, risk, trust, regulation, self-efficacy—through both mathematical modeling and empirical communication analysis. It guides the development and risk governance of complex human-machine and agentic systems, with increasing relevance to AI safety, regulatory benchmarking, digital crisis response, and the preservation of long-term human autonomy.