TRiSM for Agentic AI: A review of Trust, Risk, and Security Management in LLM-based Agentic Multi-Agent Systems
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Agentic AI exhibits self-defined and executed goal-oriented behavior.
“Self-defined and executed goal-oriented behavior”
From The Rise of Agentic AI: A Review of Definitions, Frameworks, Architectures, Applications, Evaluation Metrics, and Challenges (2025) · cites this paper as [24]
Cites
Complacency and Bias in Human Use of Automation: An Attentional Integration
Parasuraman, R., & Manzey, D. H. (2010) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/0018720810376055 · Cited by 1,710 · see citing works
Agentic AI: Autonomous intelligence for complex goals–a comprehensive survey
Acharya, D. B., Kuppan, K., & Divya, B. (2025) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2025.3532853 · Cited by 717 · see citing works
AI Agents vs. Agentic AI: A Conceptual taxonomy, applications and challenges
Sapkota, R., Roumeliotis, K. I., & Karkee, M. (2026) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2025.103599 · Cited by 244 · see citing works
Self-citationHuman-artificial interaction in the age of agentic AI: a system-theoretical approach
Borghoff, U. M., Bottoni, P., & Pareschi, R. (2025) · Frontiers in Human Dynamics · doi:10.3389/fhumd.2025.1579166 · Cited by 89 · see citing works
A Survey on Trustworthy LLM Agents: Threats and Countermeasures
Yu, M., Meng, F., Zhou, X., Wang, S., Mao, J., Pang, L., Chen, T., Wang, K., Li, X., Zhang, Y., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.09648 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Bandi, A., Kongari, B., Naguru, R., Pasnoor, S., & Vilipala, S. V. (2025) · Future Internet · doi:10.3390/fi17090404 · Cited by 207 · see citing works
Ethical issues in multi-agent AI systems for healthcare: a narrative review
Xie, Z., Wang, H., Dai, L., Wang, Z., Song, H., & Qian, J. (2026) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2026.1792627 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Vinay, V. (2026) · 2026 IEEE 5th International Conference on AI in Cybersecurity (ICAIC) · doi:10.1109/icaic67076.2026.11395809 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
- 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
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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