# Agentic AI for Commercial Insurance Underwriting with Adversarial Self-Critique

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.13213 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.13213/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Financial trading and forecasting agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 6 of its 23 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 21 Jan 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Financial trading and forecasting agents](https://mlsanity.com/agents/financial-trading-and-forecasting-agents/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 6 of 6)

- [ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.03629/) (2022)
- [Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.08073/) (2022)
- [A Survey on Hallucination in Large Language Models: Principles, Taxonomy, Challenges, and Open Questions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.05232/) (2023)
- [Harnessing the Power of LLMs in Practice: A Survey on ChatGPT and Beyond](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.13712/) (2023)
- [When Can LLMs Actually Correct Their Own Mistakes? A Critical Survey of Self-Correction of LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.01297/) (2024)
- [Critic-CoT: Boosting the reasoning abilities of large language model via Chain-of-thoughts Critic](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.16326/) (2024)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Governing the Edge: Automating Commercial Property and Casualty Insurance Underwriting via a Hybrid Local-Cloud Multi-Agent Framework](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.37454/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Commercial insurance underwriting is a labor-intensive process that requires manual review of extensive documentation to assess risk and determine policy pricing. While AI offers substantial efficiency improvements, existing solutions lack comprehensive reasoning and internal mechanisms to ensure reliability in regulated, high-stakes environments. Full automation remains impractical and inadvisable when human judgment and accountability are critical. This study presents a decision-negative, human-in-the-loop agentic system that incorporates an adversarial self-critique mechanism as a bounded safety architecture for regulated underwriting workflows. In this system, a critic agent challenges the primary agent's conclusions prior to submitting recommendations to human reviewers. This internal system of checks and balances addresses a critical gap in AI safety for regulated workflows. Additionally, the research develops a formal taxonomy of failure modes to characterize potential errors by decision-negative agents. This taxonomy provides a structured framework for risk identification and management in high-stakes applications. Experimental evaluation using 500 expert-validated underwriting cases demonstrates that the adversarial critique mechanism reduces AI hallucination rates from 11.3% to 3.8% and increases decision accuracy from 92% to 96%. At the same time, the framework enforces strict human authority over all binding decisions by design. These findings indicate that adversarial self-critique supports safer AI deployment in regulated domains and offers a model for responsible integration where human oversight is indispensable.