Delegation and Verification Under AI

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.02961v1
• Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2026 13:14:23 GMT
• Title: Delegation and Verification Under AI
• Abstract summary: We model delegation and verification as the solution to a rational worker's optimization problem.<n>We show that AI induces *phase transitions*, where arbitrarily small differences in verification ability lead to sharply different behaviors.<n>These results identify a structural mechanism by which AI reshapes institutional worker quality.
• Score: 22.05784880098445
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: 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.

Related papers

• When Does AI Augment Work? A Workflow-Level Framework for Human-Agent Collaboration [78.16115745870405]
  We aim to characterise the value of artificial intelligence in the workplace.<n>Current studies largely measure this value in terms of the current automation capabilities and public adoption of AI.<n>To account for this, we must expand the scope of our analysis beyond atomised tasks of today.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-11T06:29:34Z)
• The Human Utility Factor: A Computable Welfare Metric That Reframes AI Governance as a Constrained Optimisation Problem [3.4328929125111514]
  Existing AI governance frameworks address safety, transparency, and accountability but do not operationalize quantitative constraints on macro-socioeconomic stability.<n>We introduce the Human Utility Factor (HUF), a differentiable welfare metric that models the interaction between Agency, Wellbeing, and Economic Stability.<n>HUF yields a closed-form optimal automation level and a minimum redistribution threshold below which no level of automation is welfare-positive.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-23T04:47:33Z)
• VASO: Formally Verifiable Self-Evolving Skills for Physical AI Agents [57.240036084348354]
  We introduce VASO, a framework for verification-guided self-evolution of robot skill contracts.<n>VASO verifies logically inconsistent skill contracts, then verifies plans induced by the skill against global and local temporal specifications.<n>On Clearpath Jackal and PX4 quadcopter tasks, VASO reaches 97.2% formal-specification compliance using fewer than 100 optimization samples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-03T20:02:35Z)
• Position: agentic AI orchestration should be Bayes-consistent [92.04373485710285]
  This paper argues that coherent decision-making requires Bayesian principles at the orchestration level of the agentic system.<n>It provides examples and design patterns to illustrate how beliefs and utility-aware policies can improve agentic AI orchestration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-01T15:43:43Z)
• EmboCoach-Bench: Benchmarking AI Agents on Developing Embodied Robots [68.29056647487519]
  Embodied AI is fueled by high-fidelity simulation and large-scale data collection.<n>However, this scaling capability remains bottlenecked by a reliance on labor-intensive manual oversight.<n>We introduce textscEmboCoach-Bench, a benchmark evaluating the capacity of LLM agents to autonomously engineer embodied policies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-29T11:33:49Z)
• Agentic Confidence Calibration [67.50096917021521]
  Holistic Trajectory (HTC) is a novel diagnostic framework for AI agents.<n>HTC consistently surpasses strong baselines in both calibration and discrimination.<n>HTC provides interpretability by revealing the signals behind failure.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-22T09:08:25Z)
• Bias in the Loop: How Humans Evaluate AI-Generated Suggestions [9.578382668831988]
  Human-AI collaboration increasingly drives decision-making across industries, from medical diagnosis to content moderation.<n>We know little about the psychological factors that determine when these collaborations succeed or fail.<n>We conducted a randomized experiment with 2,784 participants to examine how task design and individual characteristics shape human responses to AI-generated suggestions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-10T11:43:29Z)
• Evaluating Uncertainty and Quality of Visual Language Action-enabled Robots [13.26825865228582]
  We propose eight uncertainty metrics and five quality metrics specifically designed for VLA models for robotic manipulation tasks.<n>We assess their effectiveness through a large-scale empirical study involving 908 successful task executions from three state-of-the-art VLA models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-22T22:15:59Z)
• Artificial Intelligence in Government: Why People Feel They Lose Control [44.99833362998488]
  The use of Artificial Intelligence in public administration is expanding rapidly.<n>While AI promises greater efficiency and responsiveness, its integration into government functions raises concerns about fairness, transparency, and accountability.<n>This article applies principal-agent theory to AI adoption as a special case of delegation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-02T07:46:41Z)
• ReVISE: Learning to Refine at Test-Time via Intrinsic Self-Verification [53.80183105328448]
  Refine via Intrinsic Self-Verification (ReVISE) is an efficient framework that enables LLMs to self-correct their outputs through self-verification.<n>Our experiments on various reasoning tasks demonstrate that ReVISE achieves efficient self-correction and significantly improves reasoning performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-20T13:50:02Z)
• Interactive Agents to Overcome Ambiguity in Software Engineering [61.40183840499932]
  AI agents are increasingly being deployed to automate tasks, often based on ambiguous and underspecified user instructions.<n>Making unwarranted assumptions and failing to ask clarifying questions can lead to suboptimal outcomes.<n>We study the ability of LLM agents to handle ambiguous instructions in interactive code generation settings by evaluating proprietary and open-weight models on their performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-18T17:12:26Z)
• Fine-Grained Appropriate Reliance: Human-AI Collaboration with a Multi-Step Transparent Decision Workflow for Complex Task Decomposition [14.413413322901409]
  We propose to investigate the impact of a novel Multi-Step Transparent (MST) decision workflow on user reliance behaviors.<n>Our findings demonstrate that human-AI collaboration with an MST decision workflow can outperform one-step collaboration in specific contexts.<n>Our work highlights that there is no one-size-fits-all decision workflow that can help obtain optimal human-AI collaboration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-19T01:03:09Z)
• Employee Well-being in the Age of AI: Perceptions, Concerns, Behaviors, and Outcomes [0.0]
  The study examines how AI shapes employee perceptions, job satisfaction, mental health, and retention.<n> Transparency in AI systems emerges as a critical factor in fostering trust and positive employee attitudes.<n>The research introduces an AI-employee well-being Interaction Framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-06T06:07:44Z)
• The Foundations of Computational Management: A Systematic Approach to Task Automation for the Integration of Artificial Intelligence into Existing Workflows [55.2480439325792]
  This article introduces Computational Management, a systematic approach to task automation. The article offers three easy step-by-step procedures to begin the process of implementing AI within a workflow.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-07T01:45:14Z)
• Ranking a Set of Objects using Heterogeneous Workers: QUITE an Easy Problem [54.90613714264689]
  We focus on the problem of ranking $N$ objects starting from a set of noisy pairwise comparisons provided by a crowd of unequal workers. We propose QUITE, a non-adaptive ranking algorithm that jointly estimates workers' reliabilities and qualities of objects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-03T12:42:13Z)
• Human-AI Collaboration: The Effect of AI Delegation on Human Task Performance and Task Satisfaction [0.0]
  We show that task performance and task satisfaction improve through AI delegation. We identify humans' increased levels of self-efficacy as the underlying mechanism for these improvements. Our findings provide initial evidence that allowing AI models to take over more management responsibilities can be an effective form of human-AI collaboration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-16T11:02:46Z)

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.