Queue & AI: When Faster Tasks Slow Down the Workflow

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.27202v1
• Date: Tue, 26 May 2026 15:57:41 GMT
• Title: Queue & AI: When Faster Tasks Slow Down the Workflow
• Abstract summary: The deployment of AI tools in customer service, writing, software development, and consulting operations has been reported to generate large per-task productivity gains.<n>We argue that such mean-based metrics can misrepresent AI's effects in where tasks accumulate and compete for scarce human attention.
• Score: 2.89908994976586
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Quantifying the workplace productivity effects of Generative Artificial Intelligence is now central to economics, management, and public policy. The deployment of AI tools in customer service, writing, software development, and consulting operations has been reported to generate large per-task productivity gains, typically measured as tasks completed per worker-hour or reductions in mean handle time. We argue that such mean-based metrics can misrepresent AI's effects in workflows where tasks accumulate and compete for scarce human attention. AI assistance can generate a deceptive productivity signature: average completion times fall because AI tools typically supply a fast first draft, yet workflow-level performance deteriorates when a subset of AI errors escapes review and returns as costly downstream rework. We call this divergence between mean task speed and system-level delay the variance wedge. Depending on the operational parameters, the most time-efficient way to complete a workflow may undergo a transition between two task-processing regimes, a fully AI-assisted and a fully manual one. We formalize the mechanism as a queueing model and derive two main implications analytically. First, under congestion, reviewers rationally raise the risk threshold for checking AI outputs, reducing scrutiny precisely when it would matter the most. Second, AI assistance can stabilize an overloaded workflow only when (i) the fraction of tasks handled by AI exceeds a critical threshold, and (ii) the human attention required for review and expected rework is lower than the attention for manual completion, a requirement substantially more stringent than faster draft generation. These results suggest that AI deployment should be evaluated not only by average task speed, but by its overall effects on congestion, rework, and the robustness of human oversight under load.

Related papers

• $τ_0$-VLA: a Hierarchical Robot Foundation Model with World-Model-Guided Test-Time Computation [51.05516457377339]
  Long-horizon robot manipulation requires a robot to both execute individual skills reliably and sequence them coherently over extended tasks.<n>We introduce $_0$-VLA, a hierarchical robot foundation model that formulates high-level subtask generation as a compute-scalable inference problem.<n>A low-level policy then executes the generated subtask across multiple robot embodiments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-17T17:59:11Z)
• Nonuniformity Principle in Human-AI Coworking [7.8976567245659615]
  In generative AI, human judgment and involvement remain essential for ensuring the quality of AI-generated outputs.<n>It is desirable for human experts to provide oversight on AI regularly, often by reviewing intermediate outputs, giving feedback, making corrections, and steering subsequent steps.<n>This creates a tension between the need for human oversight and AI's efficiency in delivering more output with less intervention.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-17T22:10:07Z)
• Offloading Score: Measuring AI Reliance Through Counterfactual Workflows [70.84727355516559]
  We introduce offloading score, a measure of reliance that quantifies the fraction of cognitive effort offloaded to an AI tool.<n>We validate offloading score through intrinsic evaluations of metric validity, and a controlled user study.<n>We show that offloading score detects significantly higher reliance in time-constrained settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-28T05:44:31Z)
• The Novelty Bottleneck: A Framework for Understanding Human Effort Scaling in AI-Assisted Work [4.726153739634646]
  We propose a model of human-AI collaboration that isolates a mechanism we call the novelty bottleneck.<n>The model assumes that tasks decompose into atomic decisions, a fraction $$ of which are "novel"<n>Our contribution is not a proof that human effort must scale linearly, but a framework that identifies the novelty fraction as the key parameter governing AI-assisted productivity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-28T22:50:13Z)
• 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)
• AgentIF-OneDay: A Task-level Instruction-Following Benchmark for General AI Agents in Daily Scenarios [49.90735676070039]
  The capacity of AI agents to effectively handle tasks of increasing duration and complexity continues to grow.<n>We argue that current evaluations prioritize increasing task difficulty without sufficiently addressing the diversity of agentic tasks.<n>We propose AgentIF-OneDay, aimed at determining whether general users can utilize natural language instructions and AI agents to complete a diverse array of daily tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-28T13:49:18Z)
• AI IDEs or Autonomous Agents? Measuring the Impact of Coding Agents on Software Development [12.50615284537175]
  Large language model (LLM) based coding agents increasingly act as autonomous contributors that generate and merge pull requests.<n>We present a longitudinal causal study of agent adoption in open-source repositories using staggered difference-in-differences with matched controls.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-20T04:51:56Z)
• AI Agents as Universal Task Solvers [94.49762121230042]
  We show that the optimal speed-up that a universal solver can achieve using past data is tightly related to their algorithmic information.<n>We argue that the key quantity to optimize when scaling reasoning models is time, whose critical role in learning has so far only been indirectly considered.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-14T02:17:54Z)
• ProRefine: Inference-Time Prompt Refinement with Textual Feedback [10.679248386926703]
  AgenticThought, where multiple AI agents collaborate to accomplish complex tasks like reasoning or planning, play a substantial role in many cutting-edge commercial applications.<n>We introduce ProRefine, an innovative inference-time optimization method that uses an agentic loop of LLMs to generate and apply textual feedback.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-05T17:52:30Z)
• AI2Agent: An End-to-End Framework for Deploying AI Projects as Autonomous Agents [15.802600809497097]
  This paper introduces AI2Agent, an end-to-end framework that automates AI project deployment through guideline-driven execution.<n>We conducted experiments on 30 AI deployment cases, covering TTS, text-to-image generation, image editing, and other AI applications.<n>Results show that AI2Agent significantly reduces deployment time and improves success rates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-31T10:58:34Z)
• General Scales Unlock AI Evaluation with Explanatory and Predictive Power [57.7995945974989]
  benchmarking has guided progress in AI, but it has offered limited explanatory and predictive power for general-purpose AI systems.<n>We introduce general scales for AI evaluation that can explain what common AI benchmarks really measure.<n>Our fully-automated methodology builds on 18 newly-crafted rubrics that place instance demands on general scales that do not saturate.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-09T01:13:56Z)
• Adaptation of XAI to Auto-tuning for Numerical Libraries [0.0]
  Explainable AI (XAI) technology is gaining prominence, aiming to streamline AI model development and alleviate the burden of explaining AI outputs to users. This research focuses on XAI for AI models when integrated into two different processes for practical numerical computations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-12T09:00:56Z)
• 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)

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.