AI 中文总结
研究多智能体知识系统声明级来源问题，借鉴经典伊斯兰圣训科学方法，贡献形式映射、关系模式、决策矩阵等，对20000条声明评估，验证部分方法，也发现等级恢复循环部分失败及两次分析无定论。
AI 中文摘要
现代多智能体知识系统通过自主转换链积累知识，而非直接检索。现有来源工作记录发生的事情，源可靠性估计已确立。缺少的是一个操作框架，为声明级传输链附加分级、按域的传输器可靠性，具有完整性语义、转换类型聚合、解耦内容批评和服务/审查/隔离路由。经典伊斯兰圣训科学面临类似问题，发展出严谨方法。本文将该方法转移到人工智能系统设计。贡献了从圣训科学概念到多智能体管道的形式映射、实现声明链和分级叙述者注册表的关系模式、结合链等级与内容批评的决策矩阵，并对真实物理教科书的20000条声明进行评估。评估验证了最弱链隔离和独立链确证；报告了等级恢复循环的部分失败及两次分析无定论。
英文摘要
Modern multi-agent knowledge systems increasingly accumulate knowledge through chains of autonomous transformations rather than direct retrieval. Existing provenance work records what happened - execution traces, tool calls, evidence links - and source-reliability estimation is long established (truth discovery, reputation systems). What is missing is an operational framework that attaches graded, per-domain transmitter reliability to claim-level transmission chains, with completeness semantics, transformation-typed aggregation, decoupled content criticism, and serve/review/quarantine routing. Classical Islamic hadith science confronted a structurally similar problem: deciding whether knowledge transmitted through chains of human narrators should be accepted. Over centuries it developed a rigorous methodology - isnad (a complete transmission chain attached to every claim), rijal (systematic grading of each narrator's integrity and precision), weakest-link chain evaluation, corroboration through independent chains, and matn criticism (content evaluated independently of chain quality). This paper transfers that methodology to AI system design. We contribute a formal mapping from hadith-science concepts to multi-agent pipelines, a relational schema implementing claim chains and a graded narrator registry, a decision matrix combining chain grade with content criticism, and an evaluation on 20,000 claims from real physics textbooks. The evaluation validates weakest-link quarantine and independent-chain corroboration; reports a partial failure of the grade-recovery loop, which missed the highest-fault narrator; and reports two analyses as inconclusive, including a matched-coverage comparison the framework could not reach with the reference content critic. The paper is explicit throughout about which claims the evidence does and does not yet support.
Comments25 pages. Code, data, and analysis: https://github.com/alizahidraja/isnad (v2.0.4). Software archived at doi:10.5281/zenodo.21216873
