Cited by 57Ethics and Social Impacts of AIAdversarial Robustness in Machine LearningAccess Control and Trust

TRiSM for Agentic AI: A review of Trust, Risk, and Security Management in LLM-based Agentic Multi-Agent Systems

Open access
Raza, Shaina, Sapkota, Ranjan, Karkee, Manoj, Emmanouilidis, Christos·2026·AI Open

Abstract

Agentic AI systems, built upon large language models (LLMs) and deployed in multi-agent configurations, are redefining intelligence, autonomy, collaboration, and decision-making across enterprise and societal domains. This review presents a structured analysis of Trust, Risk, and Security Management (TRiSM) in the context of LLM-based Agentic Multi-Agent Systems (AMAS). We begin by examining the conceptual foundations of Agentic AI and highlight its architectural distinctions from traditional AI agents. We then adapt and extend the AI TRiSM framework for Agentic AI, structured around key pillars: Explainability, ModelOps, Security, Privacy and their Lifecycle Governance , each contextualized to the challenges of AMAS. A risk taxonomy is proposed to capture the unique threats and vulnerabilities of Agentic AI, ranging from coordination failures to prompt-based adversarial manipulation. To make coordination and tool use measurable in practice, we propose two metrics: the Component Synergy Score (CSS), which captures inter-agent enablement, and the Tool Utilization Efficacy (TUE), which evaluates whether tools are invoked correctly and efficiently. We further discuss strategies for improving explainability in Agentic AI, as well as approaches to enhancing security and privacy through encryption, adversarial robustness, and regulatory compliance. The review concludes with a research roadmap for the responsible development and deployment of Agentic AI, highlighting key directions to align emerging systems with TRiSM principles-ensuring safety, transparency, and accountability in their operation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.aiopen.2026.02.006

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Raza, S., Sapkota, R., Karkee, M., & Emmanouilidis, C.
Affiliations
  • Vector Institute (CA)
  • Cornell University (US)
  • University of Groningen (NL)
Corresponding author
  • Raza, Shaina
  • Sapkota, Ranjan
  • Emmanouilidis, Christos
Venue
AI Open
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2026
Volume
7
Pages
71-95
ISSN
2666-6510 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7133236347
Cited by
57
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 51 · 2025: 6
FWCI
289.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • AI Open (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Agriculture (1031712)
  • Horizon Europe
  • University of Central Florida (2024-67022-41788)
  • National Science Foundation
  • National Institute of Food and Agriculture (1029004, AWD003473, AWD004595)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Access Control and Trust
Keywords
agentic AI, multi-agent systems, large language models, explainability, privacy, security (computing), risk taxonomy, adversarial manipulation, prompt-based attacks, inter-agent coordination, tool use, adversarial robustness, encryption, regulatory compliance, lifecycle governance, responsible AI deployment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review