Skip to content
DraconiticResearch
Search Sources API
201,818 studies31 sourcesUpdated just now
PreprintarXiv licencearXiv

Principled Human-AI Collaboration in Agentic Workflows

Abstract

Organizations adopting AI face the challenge of deciding which outputs can be released without human review while meeting the quality standards of human experts. We develop a statistical framework for delegating tasks between experts and black-box generate-verify workflows, in which AI-generated answers are verified and revised over multiple rounds. Before deployment, human experts evaluate selected outputs, and their judgments are used to calibrate the verifier threshold and number of attempts. Our method selects the policy with the highest estimated automation rate among statistically approved candidates, without modifying the generator or verifier. We establish finite-sample control of the error rate among released outputs, characterize the expert evaluations sufficient to attain a target automation rate, and derive a minimax lower bound establishing rate optimality in the quality margin and required confidence. In a MultiHiertt financial question-answering case study, average held-out automation increases from 2.50% to 24.17% as expert evaluations accumulate, while released-output error rates remain around 1.20%. In contrast, heuristics that release answers after consistently high verifier scores either violate the 5% error tolerance or automate at most 1.30% of tasks. Synthetic experiments further examine these theoretical predictions under controlled settings.

Related

  1. Which Model for Which Role? Cost-Efficient Pareto Recommendation for LLM Agentic Workflows
    Qian Xie, Wenyue Hua, Yueli He +7
    arXivPreprintCC BY 4.0Full textStatisticsarXiv
  2. The double-edged sword of human-AI collaboration on design students’ competence development: The mediating roles of challenge and hindrance appraisals and the asymmetric moderation of teacher AI leadership
    Xiang Wang, MingXing Li, Jia Du +2
    PLOS OnePeer-reviewedCC BY 4.0Full textNeuroscienceStatisticsPLOS
  3. Discussion on "Principled type I error rate inflation in two-arm clinical trial designs with external control information borrowing" by Silvia Calderazzo, Manuel Wiesenfarth, Vivienn Weru, and Annette Kopp-Schneider
    Tim Friede, Christian Röver
    arXivPreprintCC BY 4.0Full textStatisticsarXiv
  4. Steepest Guidance: A Practical and Principled Approach to Inference-Time Alignment of Flow and Diffusion-based Models
    Shokichi Takakura, Akifumi Wachi, Rei Higuchi +2
    arXivPreprintarXiv licenceFull textStatisticsarXiv
  5. Principled Design of Expected Improvement for Continuous Simulation Optimization
    Songhao Wang, Jianglin Xia, Haowei Wang +1
    arXivPreprintarXiv licenceFull textStatisticsarXiv
BibTeX
@misc{cho2026principled,
  title = {{Principled Human-AI Collaboration in Agentic Workflows}},
  author = {Young Hyun Cho and Will Wei Sun},
  howpublished = {arXiv},
  year = {2026},
  month = nov,
  doi = {10.48550/arxiv.2611.01566},
  eprint = {2611.01566},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url = {https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.01566},
}
RIS
TY  - UNPB
TI  - Principled Human-AI Collaboration in Agentic Workflows
AU  - Young Hyun Cho
AU  - Will Wei Sun
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/11/01
PB  - arXiv
DO  - 10.48550/arxiv.2611.01566
UR  - https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.01566
AB  - Organizations adopting AI face the challenge of deciding which outputs can be released without human review while meeting the quality standards of human experts. We develop a statistical framework for delegating tasks between experts and black-box generate-verify workflows, in which AI-generated answers are verified and revised over multiple rounds. Before deployment, human experts evaluate selected outputs, and their judgments are used to calibrate the verifier threshold and number of attempts. Our method selects the policy with the highest estimated automation rate among statistically approved candidates, without modifying the generator or verifier. We establish finite-sample control of the error rate among released outputs, characterize the expert evaluations sufficient to attain a target automation rate, and derive a minimax lower bound establishing rate optimality in the quality margin and required confidence. In a MultiHiertt financial question-answering case study, average held-out automation increases from 2.50% to 24.17% as expert evaluations accumulate, while released-output error rates remain around 1.20%. In contrast, heuristics that release answers after consistently high verifier scores either violate the 5% error tolerance or automate at most 1.30% of tasks. Synthetic experiments further examine these theoretical predictions under controlled settings.
ER  -