arXiv:2608. 07474v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Prior work showed that human-in-the-loop oversight becomes structurally untenable in high-loss domains when AI output velocity V exceeds human cognitive capacity C_max.
Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.
arXiv:2609.21841v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Frontier language models now produce professional deliverables that expert graders judge to match human work on a substantial share of economically val...
arXiv:2606. 15563v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: AI systems increasingly delegate decisions to specialized models, evaluators, tools, and supervisory controllers.
arXiv:2607. 13034v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language model (LLM) agents increasingly automate multi-step engineering and informatics workflows, yet they rarely ask how much effort a task actually requires.
arXiv:2609.37501v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We propose RegLLM, a diagnostic harness for bounded autonomy in regulated agentic workflows. It instruments six trustworthiness signals: citation val...
arXiv:2605. 25739v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: We prove that no reinforcement learning policy with confidence-gated autonomy can simultaneously achieve maximum helpfulness, optimal calibration, and full autonomy under rational oversight, whenever some tasks exceed the agent's reliable competence: the Behavioral Credibility Trilemma.
RGDT-Bench is a new benchmark that evaluates large language models on Rule‑Governed Decision Tasks, where models must apply external rules to facts, justify decisions, and provide checkable justifications. The benchmark offers 202.1K condition‑level supervision slots across four task tracks and eight task‑probe combinations, and it labels warrant completeness through label‑blind extraction and deterministic checks. Evaluation shows that among correct responses, 40.2% of warrants are incomplete, and existing evaluators struggle to detect this, prompting the authors to train a reward model that improves AUROC to 69.24% and outperforms outcome‑supervised baselines.