The Open-Box Fallacy: Why AI Deployment Needs a Calibrated Verification Regime

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.10601v1
• Date: Mon, 11 May 2026 14:02:56 GMT
• Title: The Open-Box Fallacy: Why AI Deployment Needs a Calibrated Verification Regime
• Abstract summary: We argue that authorization should be domain-scoped, independently checkable, monitored after release, accountable, contestable, and revocable.<n>We propose Verification Coverage, a six-component reportable standard with a minimum-composition rule, as the metric that should sit beside capability scores in model cards, leaderboards, and regulatory disclosures.
• Score: 0.5277024349608833
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: AI deployment in sensitive domains such as health care, credit, employment, and criminal justice is often treated as unsafe to authorize until model internals can be explained. This often leads to an excessive reliance on mechanistic interpretability to address a deployment challenge beyond its intended scope. We argue that the gate should instead be calibrated verification: authorization should be domain-scoped, independently checkable, monitored after release, accountable, contestable, and revocable. The reason is twofold. First, model capability is uneven across nearby tasks, so authorization must attach to a specific use rather than to a model in general. Second, societies have long governed opaque expertise through credentials, monitoring, liability, appeal, and revocation rather than mechanism-level explanation. Recent evidence reinforces this distinction between mechanistic understanding and deployment authority: a 53-percentage-point gap between internal representations and output correction shows that understanding may not translate into action, while one scoping review found that only 9.0% of FDA-approved AI/ML device documents contained a prospective post-market surveillance study. We propose Verification Coverage, a six-component reportable standard with a minimum-composition rule, as the metric that should sit beside capability scores in model cards, leaderboards, and regulatory disclosures.

Related papers

• Reality Is the Final Verifier: On Two Key Gaps in Agentic Software Engineering [78.51705689800838]
  We propose an assurance-revision loop that uses deployment evidence to revise the requirements, model, or evaluator.<n>We then cast assured agentic development as a resource-allocation problem over human judgment, agent capability, and compute.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-10T17:58:48Z)
• AI Slop and Hallucinations in Vulnerability Assessment: A Survey on Reasoning Failures and Trustworthy Mitigation [48.55515767840701]
  "AI slop" is artifacts, hallucinated vulnerabilities, plausible but incorrect patches, and semantically repackaged bug reports.<n>This paper surveys the empirical evidence, identifies a unifying mechanism, and traces a path toward trustworthy triage.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-26T11:48:38Z)
• One Gate Is Not Enough: Composing Stateful Pre-Action Controls for Agentic AI [0.0]
  We show that a remediation applied by one control can change the action, evidence, or context another control evaluates, invalidating that control's earlier judgment.<n>We formalize this coupling and give a remediate-and-regate protocol that restores per-action soundness in the current bounded, idempotent setting.<n>This is a mechanism demonstration on open payload data with a synthetic metadata layer, not a claim about production prevalence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-18T22:24:44Z)
• Scaling, Lock-In, and Proxy Compliance: A Political Economy of Responsible AI [1.253312107729806]
  We develop a sequential political-economy model to address accountability for AI systems.<n>We show that an AI vendor chooses auditability and substantive mitigation, a deployer monitors after adoption while switching costs, and enforcement depends on verifiable evidence.<n>The results explain why documentation and standardized evaluations can coexist with persistent post-deployment harms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-30T11:12:13Z)
• CIAware-Bench: Benchmarking Control Intervention Awareness Across Frontier LLMs [100.38986535324284]
  We introduce textbfCIAware-Bench, a benchmark for measuring textbfcontrol textbfintervention (CI) awareness across frontier models.<n>CIAware-Bench tests whether models can distinguish their own trajectories from those modified by a control intervention.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-09T16:24:16Z)
• Interpretation, Learning, and Empathy as One Constraint: A Residual-Adequacy Architecture with Accountable Abstention [0.0]
  We develop a small cognitive architecture in which limits arise from a single quantity.<n>An Interpretation-Decision Unit (IDU) interprets a content vector through a family of regimes and decides which actions it licenses.<n>We prove the unit is total and deterministic: for any content and fixed configuration it halts in finitely many bounded-cost steps with a unique terminal witness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-24T10:57:28Z)
• The Endogeneity of Miscalibration: Impossibility and Escape in Scored Reporting [2.3698341511302443]
  Eliciting truthful reports from autonomous agents is a core problem in scalable AI oversight.<n>A principal scores the agent's report using a strictly proper scoring rule, but the agent also benefits from the report through a non-accuracy channel.<n>Our main result is an endogeneity: the principal's optimal oversight necessarily uses a non-affine approval function to screen types.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-08T12:42:28Z)
• Making AI-Assisted Grant Evaluation Auditable without Exposing the Model [0.0]
  We propose a TEE-based architecture that helps reconcile requirements through remote attestation.<n>The architecture allows an external verifier to check which model, rubric, prompt template, and input representation were used.<n>We position the design relative to confidential AI inference, attestable AI audits, zero-knowledge machine learning, algorithmic accountability, and AI-assisted peer review.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-28T04:10:04Z)
• IMPACT-CYCLE: A Contract-Based Multi-Agent System for Claim-Level Supervisory Correction of Long-Video Semantic Memory [73.22944697933603]
  Existing pipelines produce opaque, end-to-end outputs that expose no intermediate state for inspection.<n>We present IMPACT-Cycle, a supervisory multi-agent system that reformulates long-video understanding as a multimodal iterative claim-level maintenance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-22T03:03:33Z)
• Upholding Epistemic Agency: A Brouwerian Assertibility Constraint for Responsible AI [0.0]
  I propose a Brouwer-inspired assertibility constraint for responsible AI.<n>In high-stakes domains, systems may assert or deny claims only if they can provide a publicly inspectable and contestable certificate of entitlement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-04T12:14:21Z)
• To Throw a Stone with Six Birds: On Agents and Agenthood [0.0]
  Six Birds Theory (SBT) treats macroscopic objects as induced closures rather than primitives.<n>We give a type-correct account of agency within SBT.<n>We operationalize this contract in finite controlled systems using four checkable components.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-03T10:46:23Z)
• Preventing the Collapse of Peer Review Requires Verification-First AI [49.995126139461085]
  We propose truth-coupling, i.e. how tightly venue scores track latent scientific truth.<n>We formalize two forces that drive a phase transition toward proxy-sovereign evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-23T17:17:32Z)
• Critical or Compliant? The Double-Edged Sword of Reasoning in Chain-of-Thought Explanations [60.27156500679296]
  We study the role of Chain-of-Thought (CoT) explanations in moral scenarios by systematically perturbing reasoning chains and manipulating delivery tones.<n>Our findings reveal two key effects: (1) users often trust with outcome agreement, sustaining reliance even when reasoning is flawed.<n>These results highlight how CoT explanations can simultaneously clarify and mislead, underscoring the need for NLP systems to provide explanations that encourage scrutiny and critical thinking rather than blind trust.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-15T02:38:49Z)
• Judging by the Rules: Compliance-Aligned Framework for Modern Slavery Statement Monitoring [24.13989765643719]
  Modern slavery affects millions of people worldwide, and regulatory frameworks such as Modern Slavery Acts now require companies to publish detailed disclosures.<n>These statements are often vague and inconsistent, making manual review time-consuming and difficult to scale.<n>We propose a novel framework that harnesses AI for rule-level compliance verification while preserving expert oversight.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-11T03:41:44Z)
• From Chaos to Clarity: Claim Normalization to Empower Fact-Checking [57.024192702939736]
  Claim Normalization (aka ClaimNorm) aims to decompose complex and noisy social media posts into more straightforward and understandable forms. We propose CACN, a pioneering approach that leverages chain-of-thought and claim check-worthiness estimation. Our experiments demonstrate that CACN outperforms several baselines across various evaluation measures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-22T16:07:06Z)
• Auditing AI models for Verified Deployment under Semantic Specifications [65.12401653917838]
  AuditAI bridges the gap between interpretable formal verification and scalability. We show how AuditAI allows us to obtain controlled variations for verification and certified training while addressing the limitations of verifying using only pixel-space perturbations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-25T22:53:24Z)

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.