When May a Model Replace the Experiment? Audits, Licenses, and the Price of Trust in Surrogate-Driven Design

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.01378v1
• Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2026 16:59:29 GMT
• Title: When May a Model Replace the Experiment? Audits, Licenses, and the Price of Trust in Surrogate-Driven Design
• Abstract summary: Design campaigns in chemistry, materials science, and machine learning share a bottleneck: determining how good a candidate truly is requires an expensive evaluation.<n>Machine-learning surrogates that predict these outcomes are increasingly used to propose candidates but to grade them, and even to feed their own predictions back into the search as though they were measurements.<n>We establish when this practice is safe, what any certificate of safety must cost, and when the substitution provably pays.
• Score: 8.037395295172088
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Design campaigns in chemistry, materials science, and machine learning share a bottleneck: determining how good a candidate truly is requires an expensive evaluation - an experiment, a first-principles simulation, or a full training run. Machine-learning surrogates that predict these outcomes are increasingly used not only to propose candidates but to grade them, and even to feed their own predictions back into the search as though they were measurements. Through mathematical analysis validated on three exhaustively ground-truthed design tasks, we establish when this practice is safe, what any certificate of safety must cost, and when the substitution provably pays. Predictive accuracy cannot anchor trust: near-perfect R^2 is compatible with worst-possible selections, and screening N candidates inflates the over-prediction at the selected candidate by a quantifiable "selection tax" with matching upper and lower bounds. Safety follows instead from an architectural rule - predictions may propose and train without restriction, but every certified conclusion must rest on true evaluations - which is sufficient with no assumptions on the surrogate, and necessary, since admitting predictions into certification with the standing of measurements opens a deterministic self-confirmation failure mode. We derive the minimal criterion under which a model may act as an oracle (rank preservation, not accuracy), show that trust must be purchased through selection-aware audits that are optimal in query complexity, and prove a dichotomy fixing when audited surrogates cut certified evaluation cost. Across 432 surrogate fits over six task-regime conditions, the audit statistic tracks deployed search performance at Spearman rank correlation 0.80-0.99, while the rank correlation of R^2 with deployed regret falls as low as 0.33; audited screening reduces certified oracle cost by a measured factor of 25.

Related papers

• AI Evaluation Should Measure Verification Cost, Not Correctness Alone [1.3124513975412253]
  We argue that current evaluation metrics overlook a critical failure mode: Verification-Cost Errors (VCEs)<n>VCEs are defined operationally, by the failure of correct identification within budget rather than by any property of the output itself.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-09T13:44:26Z)
• FinAbstain: Uncertainty-Calibrated Multimodal RAG for Selective Financial Forecasting [8.891247829087936]
  FinAbstain is a framework for uncertainty-calibrated multimodal retrieval-augmented generation with selective prediction.<n>A point-in-time retriever admits only information public at the forecast timestamp and supplies modality-specific evidence to fundamental, news, technical, risk, and verification agents.<n>A controller predicts bullish, bearish, or neutral outcomes only when uncertainty is below a validated threshold.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-27T07:05:22Z)
• Conformal Reliability: A New Evaluation Metric for Conditional Generation [62.761166941396844]
  Conditional generative models have recently remarkable success in various applications.<n>We propose a novel evaluation metric called reliability based on prediction set at a pre-specified confidence level.<n>We introduce Conformal ReLiability (CReL), a framework that can (i) construct a prediction set and (ii) accurately optimize the reliability score within the constructed prediction set.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-29T03:52:44Z)
• Selective Test-Time Compute Scaling for Click-Through Rate Prediction via Uncertainty-Triggered Feature Path Exploration [9.542597285477683]
  Scaling test-time compute has proven highly effective for language models, yet this opportunity remains largely unexplored for industrial Click-Through Rate (CTR) prediction.<n>We propose UTTSI (Uncertainty-Triggered Test-Time Selective Inference), a training-free model-agnostic framework that scales inference depth proportionally to per-instance uncertainty.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-24T10:29:10Z)
• Recipes for Calibration Checks in Safety-Critical Applications [0.0]
  We introduce a framework for calibration checks for safety-critical prediction systems.<n>The checks produce a single accept/reject decision for data collected from a forecaster.<n>We demonstrate the applicability of the framework on two complementary example problems, weather forecasting and robot pose estimation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-29T09:43:55Z)
• Correct Answers from Sound Reasoning: Verifiable Process Supervision for Language Models [94.68358825189738]
  We propose a post-training framework for verifiable domains that jointly optimize prediction accuracy and reasoning quality.<n>We evaluate VPS on chess, a controlled testbed where reasoning steps can be deterministically verified against engine signals.<n>VPS preserves accuracy while significantly improving reasoning quality, reducing win-rate error by up to 30% and restoring consistency to near saturation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-03T15:19:46Z)
• PRIME: A Process-Outcome Alignment Benchmark for Verifiable Reasoning in Mathematics and Engineering [71.15346406323827]
  We introduce PRIME, a benchmark for evaluating verifiers on Process-Outcome Alignment verification.<n>We find that current verifiers frequently fail to detect derivation flaws.<n>We propose a process-aware RLVR training paradigm utilizing verifiers selected via PRIME.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-12T04:45:01Z)
• Best Arm Identification with LLM Judges and Limited Human [18.85883540190321]
  We study fixed-confidence best-arm identification (BAI) where a cheap but potentially biased proxy is available for every sample.<n>We develop an estimator for the mean of each arm that combines proxy scores with inverse-propensity-weighted residuals.<n>Based on the estimator and confidence sequence, we propose an algorithm that adaptively selects and audits arms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-29T09:50:34Z)
• Calibrating LLM Judges: Linear Probes for Fast and Reliable Uncertainty Estimation [25.80946316489521]
  We introduce linear probes trained with a Brier score-based loss to provide calibrated uncertainty estimates from reasoning judges' hidden states.<n>We evaluate our approach on both objective tasks (reasoning, mathematics, factuality, coding) and subjective human preference judgments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-23T22:08:46Z)
• COIN: Uncertainty-Guarding Selective Question Answering for Foundation Models with Provable Risk Guarantees [51.5976496056012]
  COIN is an uncertainty-guarding selection framework that calibrates statistically valid thresholds to filter a single generated answer per question.<n>COIN estimates the empirical error rate on a calibration set and applies confidence interval methods to establish a high-probability upper bound on the true error rate.<n>We demonstrate COIN's robustness in risk control, strong test-time power in retaining admissible answers, and predictive efficiency under limited calibration data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-25T07:04:49Z)
• SConU: Selective Conformal Uncertainty in Large Language Models [59.25881667640868]
  We propose a novel approach termed Selective Conformal Uncertainty (SConU)<n>We develop two conformal p-values that are instrumental in determining whether a given sample deviates from the uncertainty distribution of the calibration set at a specific manageable risk level.<n>Our approach not only facilitates rigorous management of miscoverage rates across both single-domain and interdisciplinary contexts, but also enhances the efficiency of predictions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-19T03:01:45Z)
• Reliability-Aware Prediction via Uncertainty Learning for Person Image Retrieval [51.83967175585896]
  UAL aims at providing reliability-aware predictions by considering data uncertainty and model uncertainty simultaneously. Data uncertainty captures the noise" inherent in the sample, while model uncertainty depicts the model's confidence in the sample's prediction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-24T17:53:20Z)

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.