Agentic AI for Commercial Insurance Underwriting with Adversarial Self-Critique

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.13213v1
• Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2026 05:51:27 GMT
• Title: Agentic AI for Commercial Insurance Underwriting with Adversarial Self-Critique
• Authors: Joyjit Roy, Samaresh Kumar Singh,
• Abstract summary: This study presents a decision-negative, human-in-the-loop agentic system that incorporates an adversarial self-critique mechanism.<n>Within this system, a critic agent challenges the primary agent's conclusions prior to submitting recommendations to human reviewers.<n>The research develops a formal taxonomy of failure modes to characterize potential errors by decision-negative agents.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Commercial insurance underwriting is a labor-intensive process that requires manual review of extensive documentation to assess risk and determine policy pricing. While AI offers substantial efficiency improvements, existing solutions lack comprehensive reasoning capabilities and internal mechanisms to ensure reliability within regulated, high-stakes environments. Full automation remains impractical and inadvisable in scenarios where human judgment and accountability are critical. This study presents a decision-negative, human-in-the-loop agentic system that incorporates an adversarial self-critique mechanism as a bounded safety architecture for regulated underwriting workflows. Within this system, a critic agent challenges the primary agent's conclusions prior to submitting recommendations to human reviewers. This internal system of checks and balances addresses a critical gap in AI safety for regulated workflows. Additionally, the research develops a formal taxonomy of failure modes to characterize potential errors by decision-negative agents. This taxonomy provides a structured framework for risk identification and risk management in high-stakes applications. Experimental evaluation using 500 expert-validated underwriting cases demonstrates that the adversarial critique mechanism reduces AI hallucination rates from 11.3% to 3.8% and increases decision accuracy from 92% to 96%. At the same time, the framework enforces strict human authority over all binding decisions by design. These findings indicate that adversarial self-critique supports safer AI deployment in regulated domains and offers a model for responsible integration where human oversight is indispensable.

Related papers

• Mirror: A Multi-Agent System for AI-Assisted Ethics Review [104.3684024153469]
  Mirror is an agentic framework for AI-assisted ethical review.<n>It integrates ethical reasoning, structured rule interpretation, and multi-agent deliberation within a unified architecture.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-09T03:38:55Z)
• Standardized Threat Taxonomy for AI Security, Governance, and Regulatory Compliance [0.0]
  "Language barrier" currently separates technical security teams, who focus on algorithmic vulnerabilities, from legal and compliance professionals, who address regulatory mandates.<n>This research presents the AI System Threat Vector taxonomy, a structured ontology designed explicitly for Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA)<n>The framework categorizes AI-specific risks into nine critical domains: Misuse, Poisoning, Privacy, Adrial, Biases, Unreliable Outputs, Drift, Supply Chain, and IP Threat, integrating 53 operationally defined sub-threats.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-26T20:42:46Z)
• AURA: An Agent Autonomy Risk Assessment Framework [0.0]
  AURA (Agent aUtonomy Risk Assessment) is a unified framework designed to detect, quantify, and mitigate risks arising from agentic AI.<n>AURA provides an interactive process to score, evaluate and mitigate the risks of running one or multiple AI Agents, synchronously or asynchronously.<n>AURA supports a responsible and transparent adoption of agentic AI and provides robust risk detection and mitigation while balancing computational resources.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-17T15:30:29Z)
• Zero-shot reasoning for simulating scholarly peer-review [0.0]
  We investigate a deterministic simulation framework that provides the first stable, evidence-based standard for evaluating AI-generated peer review reports.<n>First, the system is able to simulate calibrated editorial judgment, with 'Revise' decisions consistently forming the majority outcome.<n>Second, it maintains unwavering procedural integrity, enforcing a stable 29% evidence-anchoring compliance rate.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-02T13:59:14Z)
• SafeEvalAgent: Toward Agentic and Self-Evolving Safety Evaluation of LLMs [37.82193156438782]
  This paper introduces a new paradigm of agentic safety evaluation, reframing evaluation as a continuous and self-evolving process.<n>We propose a novel multi-agent framework SafeEvalAgent, which autonomously ingests unstructured policy documents to generate and perpetually evolve a comprehensive safety benchmark.<n>Our experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of SafeEvalAgent, showing a consistent decline in model safety as the evaluation hardens.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-30T11:20:41Z)
• RADAR: A Risk-Aware Dynamic Multi-Agent Framework for LLM Safety Evaluation via Role-Specialized Collaboration [81.38705556267917]
  Existing safety evaluation methods for large language models (LLMs) suffer from inherent limitations.<n>We introduce a theoretical framework that reconstructs the underlying risk concept space.<n>We propose RADAR, a multi-agent collaborative evaluation framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-28T09:35:32Z)
• Never Compromise to Vulnerabilities: A Comprehensive Survey on AI Governance [211.5823259429128]
  We propose a comprehensive framework integrating technical and societal dimensions, structured around three interconnected pillars: Intrinsic Security, Derivative Security, and Social Ethics.<n>We identify three core challenges: (1) the generalization gap, where defenses fail against evolving threats; (2) inadequate evaluation protocols that overlook real-world risks; and (3) fragmented regulations leading to inconsistent oversight.<n>Our framework offers actionable guidance for researchers, engineers, and policymakers to develop AI systems that are not only robust and secure but also ethically aligned and publicly trustworthy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-12T09:42:56Z)
• Bench-2-CoP: Can We Trust Benchmarking for EU AI Compliance? [2.010294990327175]
  Current AI evaluation practices depend heavily on established benchmarks.<n>This research addresses the urgent need to quantify this "benchmark-regulation gap"<n>Our findings reveal a profound misalignment: the evaluation ecosystem dedicates the vast majority of its focus to a narrow set of behavioral propensities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-07T15:03:39Z)
• Answer, Refuse, or Guess? Investigating Risk-Aware Decision Making in Language Models [63.559461750135334]
  Language models (LMs) are increasingly used to build agents that can act autonomously to achieve goals.<n>We study this "answer-or-defer" problem with an evaluation framework that systematically varies human-specified risk structures.<n>We find that a simple skill-decomposition method, which isolates the independent skills required for answer-or-defer decision making, can consistently improve LMs' decision policies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-03T09:16:26Z)
• AILuminate: Introducing v1.0 of the AI Risk and Reliability Benchmark from MLCommons [62.374792825813394]
  This paper introduces AILuminate v1.0, the first comprehensive industry-standard benchmark for assessing AI-product risk and reliability.<n>The benchmark evaluates an AI system's resistance to prompts designed to elicit dangerous, illegal, or undesirable behavior in 12 hazard categories.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-19T05:58:52Z)
• ASSERT: Automated Safety Scenario Red Teaming for Evaluating the Robustness of Large Language Models [65.79770974145983]
  ASSERT, Automated Safety Scenario Red Teaming, consists of three methods -- semantically aligned augmentation, target bootstrapping, and adversarial knowledge injection. We partition our prompts into four safety domains for a fine-grained analysis of how the domain affects model performance. We find statistically significant performance differences of up to 11% in absolute classification accuracy among semantically related scenarios and error rates of up to 19% absolute error in zero-shot adversarial settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-14T17:10:28Z)
• Model evaluation for extreme risks [46.53170857607407]
  Further progress in AI development could lead to capabilities that pose extreme risks, such as offensive cyber capabilities or strong manipulation skills. We explain why model evaluation is critical for addressing extreme risks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T16:38:43Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.