The geometry of AI validation: From structural blindness to reusable audits

An initial high-recall stage in an empirical pipeline decides which items pass to later review, labelling, or modelling, and relevant items it misses are lost to every subsequent stage. We study how many audit labels are needed to certify, with finite-sample validity, that this missed relevant mass is small, and our main results characterise the label complexity of this problem. We first show that no procedure using only labels from inside the candidate set can certify any non-trivial bound on the missed mass: the audit must sample the excluded pool, the only region where unrecovered relevant items can lie. We then prove a matching finite-corpus lower bound. Any valid audit that certifies fewer than $m$ missed relevant items with high probability when none are present, even if adaptive and permitted to label the entire included pool, must inspect on the order of $N_0/m$ excluded-pool labels. Excluded-pool auditing is therefore minimax rate-optimal, not merely convenient, for missed-mass certification in the zero-miss regime. Building on this characterisation, we develop an exact finite-sample toolkit, using binomial and hypergeometric inversion rather than asymptotic approximation, that certifies missed mass, converts it to recall through a two-pool design, certifies pre-specified families of nested candidate generators simultaneously, and produces stress-test certificates against declared perturbation mechanisms. These certificates can be paired with observable review burden to select the least burdensome pre-specified candidate generator meeting a missed-mass target. Every guarantee holds under one discipline: the candidate generator, or the pre-specified family from which it is selected, and the audit rule are fixed before the certification labels are examined.

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.

A major bottleneck in characterizing the failure modes of generative AI systems is the cost and time of annotation and evaluation. Consequently, adaptive testing paradigms have gained popularity, where one opportunistically decides which cases and how many to annotate based on past results. While this framework is highly practical, its extreme flexibility makes it difficult to draw statistically rigorous conclusions, as it violates classical assumptions: the number of observations is typically limited (often 10 to 50 cases) and decisions regarding sampling and stopping are made in the midst of data collection rather than based a pre-specified rule. To characterize what statistical inferences can be drawn from highly adaptive audits, we introduce a hypothesis testing framework from two 'dueling' perspectives: (i) the model's null that asserts there is no failure mode with performance below a target threshold versus (ii) the auditor's null that asserts they have a sampling strategy that will uncover a failure mode. Leveraging Safe Anytime-Valid Inference (SAVI), we formalize the auditor as conducting 'testing by betting', which translates into simultaneous e-processes for testing the dueling null hypotheses. Furthermore, if the auditor is sufficiently powerful, we prove that these two hypotheses are asymptotically inverses of each other, in that passage of a stringent audit does in fact certify the AI system as being globally robust. Empirically, we demonstrate that our proposed testing procedures maintain anytime-valid type-I error control, outperform pre-specified testing methods, and can reach statistically rigorous conclusions sometimes with as few as 20 observations.