Skip to content

Epistemic Transfer in AI-Assisted Verification: A Framework and Evaluation Protocol

Aug 2026 · 0 citations · 51 references
Computer Science

TL;DR

This paper introduces the Epistemic Transfer Effect (ETE), which compares delayed unassisted performance across conditions, and Tool-Removal Cost (TRC), which measures the immediate drop in performance when the tool is taken away, and turns these ideas into a practical evaluation protocol that can be used in online experiments or field studies.

Abstract

AI tools can improve claim judgments while leaving open what users can do later without them. This paper develops an evaluation framework for epistemic transfer: the effect of prior AI-assisted verification on delayed judgments of novel claims under a specified access regime. The contribution is a verification-specific synthesis of learning, transfer, and human--AI evaluation, organized around two complementary estimands. The Epistemic Transfer Effect (ETE) compares delayed performance after alternative practice conditions. Tool-Removal Cost (TRC) compares immediate performance with and without assistance after practice; despite its name, it measures a current availability effect, not skill loss or psychological dependence. The proposed randomized protocol includes answer-first and evidence-first interfaces, active practice, a no-additional-practice comparator, and held-out claims. It specifies how to account for learning opportunities introduced by assessment, elicit confidence probabilities, average model predictions over a target population, and handle attrition and uncertainty. Reading ETE and TRC together distinguishes relative capability gains, equivalence, transfer penalties, and unresolved outcomes. A ``verification-on-loan''profile is explicitly comparator-relative and cannot be inferred from a nonsignificant delayed contrast. A brief illustration from a two-wave verification study shows why these distinctions matter: an uncertain delayed interface contrast and an ordered assisted--unassisted probe cannot establish a clean transfer profile. The framework makes a practical demand: when independent judgment matters, evaluate both what assistance contributes now and what prior use changes later.

View source

Similar papers

Preprint Aug 2026

TRACES: A Benchmark for Epistemic Reliability in Scientific Reasoning by LLMs

A probe corpus of 42 retracted, fraudulent, and pseudoscientific papers is paired with a methodology for eliciting and scoring single-shot model engagement with each paper's framing, indicating an urgent need for guardrail infrastructure for scientific deployment of language models.

V. Rodionov, Shamil Assylbekov · 0 citations
Review Jul 2026

When benchmark inferences do not compose: Projectibility in AI evaluation

An interface audit for distributed AI evidence: typed source and target descriptions, and a procedure separating endpoints that never meet from endpoints that meet while warrant fails to cross, and the resulting projectibility audit diagnoses unsupported joins in benchmark-to-use arguments.

Brett Reynolds · 0 citations
Preprint Jul 2026

ResearchArena: Evaluating Sabotage and Monitoring in Automated AI R&D

ResearchArena is released as a modular framework for evaluating sabotage and control in automated AI R&D with ResearchArena, a framework spanning four long-horizon tasks: safety post-training, capabilities post-training, CUDA-kernel optimization, and inference-server optimization.

Lena Libon, Ben Rank, Jehyeok Yeon et al. · 0 citations
#explainable ai Review Jul 2026

Evaluating the Impact of Explainable AI on Trust in AI-Assisted Code Review

Background: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to automate code review, but the reasoning behind their decisions remains hard to understand. Developers struggle to assess the validity of LLM-generated reviews, making it difficult to gauge how much trust to place in them. The role of Explainable AI (XAI)...

Zhenhan Gao, Marvin Muñoz Barón, Umm E. Habiba et al. · 0 citations
Conference 2026

When Verification Hurts: The Cost of Overriding Abstention in Two-Stage Web Agents

This study cautions against transplanting verification into grounding pipelines and identifies calibrated abstention as a property worth preserving and proposes an abstention-aware verifier that intervenes only under sufficient candidate coverage and confidence.

Duchen Li · 0 citations

Related blog posts

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.