Abstract
Enterprise AI programmes stall at a rate that is widely quoted and poorly explained. This paper measures the mechanism. Six document-heavy workflows of the kind performed daily in regulated financial services were run across four model families and three tool configurations, three times each, producing 5,093 scored output elements across 72 configurations. Each configuration was assessed twice: against a demonstration bar, being a single correct run on a single case, and against a production bar requiring sustained accuracy, reproducibility across repeats, verifiable attribution, and a confidence signal that carries information. 57 of 72 configurations cleared the demonstration bar and 32 cleared the production bar, a survival rate of 56.1%. The paper then computes the review burden each configuration imposes, estimated out of sample rather than with hindsight. A tool that states no confidence requires review of 100% of its output, because it offers a reviewer no basis for triage. Requiring the tool to cite its sources and state a confidence reduces that to 49% while holding the residual error tolerance in 17 of 20 configurations. Adding a self-verification pass costs 2.3 times the latency of the plain configuration, reaches 44%, and is the only configuration that fails to hold the error tolerance. The practical implication is that the value of an AI workflow is set less by how often it is right than by how much of it a human must still check, and that the second property is measurable and rarely measured.
Explore similar work
Aug 9, 2026cs.AI
The reliability of AI generative models is typically measured by output correctness, yet in practice it depends on the effort required to verify those outputs. We argue that current evaluation metrics overlook a critical failure mode: Verification-Cost Errors (VCEs), defined as incorrect input-output pairs that a declared fraction of the verifier population fails to identify within the verification budget available in a given deployment context. Unlike standard notions of "hallucination", VCEs are defined operationally, by the failure of correct identification within budget rather than by any property of the output itself. Plausibility and authoritative presentation are hypothesised contributors to that failure, not defining conditions. To capture this asymmetry, we introduce the notion of verification cost relative to a deployment budget as an operational dimension that current evaluation does not routinely capture. The quantity is presented as a conceptual instrument rather than a finalized metric. Evidence from code generation and multi-modal document understanding shows that high benchmark accuracy can mask significant verification effort in practice. We therefore take the position that correctness alone is insufficient as a measure of reliability. AI evaluation should explicitly account for verification cost, reflecting whether errors can be detected under realistic resource constraints.
Viviana Crescitelli, Generoso Immediato, Fabio Persia +1
Sep 17, 2026cs.CR
AI-generated RTL verification plans can satisfy a provider schema yet fail at the boundary to trusted execution. We present SecTB-RTL, an auditable framework covering 31 tasks and 124 authored hardware-security regressions. A deterministic non-AI baseline killed 36, 75, and 78 mutants at increasing resource limits. The first confirmatory run (C1-R2) failed before model execution because the provider rejected its response schema. After a schema-only repair made without viewing outcomes, a separately frozen follow-up run (C1-R3) completed 1,860 calls. The provider accepted 1,857 responses, but only nine passed the production semantic validator. The generation and execution rules did not match. We therefore preserve the run as an instrument-validation incident and report no prompt-effect estimate. This incident shows that provider or schema acceptance does not establish execution validity. Compilation and coverage are only diagnostics; the exact saved artifact must pass the full production path. A subsequent follow-up is excluded because it did not satisfy the preregistered evidence-completeness gate and is treated only as future work. We release the benchmark, failure-preserving contract, incident provenance, and governance controls needed to prevent infrastructure behavior from being misreported as model behavior.
Hang Xiao, Chuhong Xu, Kainan Zhou +2
Mar 3, 2026cs.GT
As AI systems enter institutional workflows, workers must decide whether to delegate task execution to AI and how much effort to invest in verifying AI outputs, while institutions evaluate workers using outcome-based standards that may misalign with workers' private costs. We model delegation and verification as the solution to a rational worker's optimization problem, and define worker quality by evaluating an institution-centered utility (distinct from the worker's objective) at the resulting optimal action. We formally characterize optimal worker workflows and show that AI induces phase transitions, where arbitrarily small differences in verification ability lead to sharply different behaviors. As a result, AI can amplify workers with strong verification reliability while degrading institutional worker quality for others who rationally over-delegate and reduce oversight, even when baseline task success improves and no behavioral biases are present. These results identify a structural mechanism by which AI reshapes institutional worker quality and amplifies quality disparities between workers with different verification reliability.
Lingxiao Huang, Wenyang Xiao, Nisheeth K. Vishnoi