Refuse, Decompose, Refresh: A Claim-Safe Protocol for Closed-Loop AI Evaluation
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
An AI evaluation can be perfectly reproducible and still support the wrong claim. This risk is acute in closed-loop systems: policy determines visited states, observable components, and which failures leave a measurable trace. We propose a claim-safe protocol with three actions. Refuse: abstain when a clean reference stream or matched runtime comparison lacks support. Decompose: report protocol execution, operational false admission, and structural hypotheses separately rather than as one PASS/FAIL label. Refresh: treat distribution-shift alarms as requests to invalidate and recompute a reference map, not as fault evidence. We instantiate the protocol in an aggregate-only simulator with 24 policy components, three demand regimes, two fault-mask families, and independent development and heldout seeds. The preregistered heldout contains 1,440 cases and 21,600 partition rows. Only 55/72 regime-component units were reference-admitted and 54/55 remained runtime-admitted, making abstention part of the result. Stable false admission was 0/20 represented components, with a one-sided exact 95% upper bound of 0.1391 under a frozen 0.20 rule. Within admitted units, affected clean traffic outpredicted nominal fault-cell fraction: across 540 unit-arm rows nested in 20 component clusters, the cell-minus-traffic negative-log-likelihood difference was 0.1264 nats per row, with a 95% component-cluster interval of [0.0593, 0.1918]. A drift log shows why "null" must be reference-relative: clean fault-null streams triggered 15/15, 0/15, and 14/15 alarms across three regimes, while only the middle regime matched the frozen detector reference. Rather than a universal threshold, we contribute an executable contract linking observable support, statistical calibration, and justified claims.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 10 of its 18 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 17 Sep 2026.
Builds on
10 of 18 references.
References · 10
- 2016Distribution-Free Predictive Inference For Regressioncited by 668
- 2020Underspecification Presents Challenges for Credibility in Modern Machine Learningcited by 496
- 2019SelectiveNet: A Deep Neural Network with an Integrated Reject Optioncited by 350
- 2021AI and the Everything in the Whole Wide World Benchmarkcited by 349
- 2019Measurement and Fairnesscited by 308
- 2021Distribution-Free, Risk-Controlling Prediction Setscited by 288
- 2018Failing Loudly: An Empirical Study of Methods for Detecting Dataset Shiftcited by 243
- 2020Selective Classification via One-Sided Predictioncited by 38
- 2019Characterization of Overlap in Observational Studiescited by 15
- 2024Selective Classification Under Distribution Shiftscited by 12
Built on by
Not cited yet.