When Should an AI Workflow Release? Always-Valid Inference for Black-Box Generate-Verify Systems
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
LLM-enabled AI workflows increasingly produce outputs through iterative generate-evaluate-revise loops. Each iteration can improve the candidate, but it also creates a release decision: when to stop and output the current result? This raises a statistical challenge because deployment-time evaluator scores are adaptively generated and repeatedly monitored, yet the likelihood models or exchangeability assumptions typically used for calibration are unavailable. We propose an always-valid release wrapper for existing generator-evaluator pipelines. The wrapper builds a hard-negative reference pool of high-scoring failures, calibrates deployment-time evaluator scores against this pool, and accumulates the resulting evidence with an e-process. This separates two roles: the reference pool turns black-box scores into conservative evidence, while the e-process provides validity under optional stopping. In theory, we show that a conservative reference pool yields finite-sample control of the probability of releasing on infeasible tasks, that is, tasks for which the given workflow is not capable of producing a reliable solution. We also characterize conditions under which the same conservative rule still achieves nontrivial release on feasible tasks. In an MBPP+ coding-agent case study, the wrapper reduces premature incorrect release relative to baseline stopping rules while still releasing on tasks for which the workflow repeatedly accumulates moderate supporting evidence.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 19 of its 42 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 13 May 2026.
Builds on
19 of 42 references.
References · 19
- 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 10,109
- 2024DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Modelscited by 9,379
- 2025DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learningcited by 6,330
- 2021Program Synthesis with Large Language Modelscited by 3,637
- 2022Do As I Can, Not As I Say: Grounding Language in Robotic Affordancescited by 2,348
- 2023Voyager: An Open-Ended Embodied Agent with Large Language Modelscited by 2,191
- 2024Qwen2.5-Coder Technical Reportcited by 1,203
- 2024Rewarding Progress: Scaling Automated Process Verifiers for LLM Reasoningcited by 279
- 2024Escape Sky-high Cost: Early-stopping Self-Consistency for Multi-step Reasoningcited by 108
- 2025Dynamic Scaling of Unit Tests for Code Reward Modelingcited by 33
- 2025Think Just Enough: Sequence-Level Entropy as a Confidence Signal for LLM Reasoningcited by 24
- 2025Thought calibration: Efficient and confident test-time scalingcited by 21
7 more
- 2025Early Stopping Chain-of-thoughts in Large Language Modelscited by 20
- 2026Does Your Reasoning Model Implicitly Know When to Stop Thinking?cited by 19
- 2025From Efficiency to Adaptivity: A Deeper Look at Adaptive Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 12
- 2026AgentStepper: Interactive Debugging of Software Development Agentscited by 9
- 2026Statistical Early Stopping for Reasoning Modelscited by 6
- 2025Logit-Entropy Adaptive Stopping Heuristic for Efficient Chain-of-Thought Reasoningcited by 2
- 2026Online LLM watermark detection via e-processescited by 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 3.
3 papers.