COVER: Identifiable Evaluation of Coalition Routing

Raghul Sugumar; Amrit Gopinath

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2608.28475

COVER: Identifiable Evaluation of Coalition Routing

Raghul Sugumar·Amrit Gopinath

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

When a multi-agent system changes its team, it also changes the messages and final answer it produces, so an end-to-end accuracy gap does not by itself identify a routing effect. We introduce method, an evaluation contract that fixes a public information boundary, downstream stack G, and finite legal team family before outcomes are generated. Complete coverage identifies exact finite-benchmark oracle regret conditional on that stack. For any finite collection of frozen policies, executing the union of their distinct selected teams is the minimal assumption-free support for every pairwise policy contrast, though not for absolute oracle regret. Two controlled tables with source-ID-disjoint splits test the instrument. On MuSiQue-12, a pre-specified privileged positive control improves regret from 0.532 to 0.402; a later public-interface control reaches 0.424 versus 0.554 but is retrospective. On HotpotQA-4, a pre-specified public direct scorer improves regret from 0.313 to 0.110. In fixed-stack Llama execution, verified route regret improves by 0.190, while the raw-answer gain is 0.010 with an interval crossing zero. A five-family ToolSandbox variant-shift validation exhaustively evaluates 16 declared teams on 14 untouched task variants (224/224 valid rows): the declared-family oracle reaches 0.768 safe-evidence completion, while the prospectively frozen router gets 0.637 (regret 0.131), failing the predeclared 0.10 criterion. A later retrospective comparator reaches 0.655, matching all-workers with 4.57 versus 5.00 workers on average. Thus COVER exposes selection headroom without manufacturing a routing win. A crossed-stack diagnostic shows absolute scores depend on G but finds no detectable router-by-finalizer interaction. COVER is an auditable measurement methodology, not a claim of stack-invariant or universal agent-routing superiority.

Explore related subjects

cs.AI

Keep this discovery

BibTeX RIS

Raghul Sugumar, Amrit Gopinath. 2026-08-28. COVER: Identifiable Evaluation of Coalition Routing. https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.28475

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

cs.AI subject

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related discoveries

arXiv2026

One AI Signal, Many Human Judgments: A Bayesian Cascade Analysis of AI-based Credibility Indicators in Online Information Spread

Social media platforms increasingly use AI-based credibility indicators to help users judge misinformation. Unlike individual human-AI decision-making, these indicators are embedded in information spread: users see both an AI prediction and earlier judgments shaped by the same AI, and their own judgments may then enter the public history. Yet how to analytically characterize this process remains under-explored. We therefore introduce a social-learning lens for this setting by extending the classical Bayesian cascade model with the AI indicator as a shared public signal. The resulting Gateway condition compares the evidence from the AI prediction with users' private impressions. Through this view, we show that AI changes what public history means. Crowd agreement may reflect accumulated independent human evidence, or repeated dependence on the same AI prediction. This creates a preservation-correction trade-off: stronger reliance on AI can preserve correct predictions, but can also lock in incorrect ones by blocking corrective private impressions. We calibrate the model using human-subject data on news veracity judgments. Although the AI outperforms human users, the average user weights it below her own impression but above several peer judgments, while individual users vary from discounting the AI to relying on it enough to cascade. Simulations show that over-reliance on a weak AI is especially harmful, and that diversifying AI signals across users can better keep the crowd informative. We conclude with implications for understanding human-AI interaction in information spread and designing misinformation interventions.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

"An Endless Stream of AI Slop": How Developers Discuss the Burden of AI-Assisted Software Development

"AI slop", that is, low-quality AI-generated content, is increasingly affecting software development, from generated code and pull requests to documentation and bug reports. However, there is limited empirical research on how developers perceive and respond to this phenomenon. We qualitatively analyzed how developers discuss AI slop in 1,154 Reddit and Hacker News posts, developing a codebook of 15 codes organized into three thematic clusters: Review Friction (how AI slop burdens reviewers, erodes trust, and prompts countermeasures), Quality Degradation (damage to codebases, knowledge resources, and developer competence), and Forces and Consequences (systemic incentives, mandated adoption, craft erosion, and workforce disruption). Our findings frame AI slop as a tragedy of the commons, where individual productivity gains externalize costs onto reviewers, maintainers, and the broader community. We report the concerns developers raise and the mitigation strategies they propose, with implications for tool developers, team leads, and educators.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

AI Writers Have a Consistent Stylometric Footprint, but AI Editors Do Not

Text generated by large language models (LLMs) has been shown to be stylometrically distinct from human-written text \citep{andreDetectingAIAuthorship2023, shahDetectingUnmaskingAIGenerated2023, oparaStyloAIDistinguishingAIGenerated2024, soto2024fewshot, liLinguisticDifferencesAI2025, selviogluFeatureExtractionAnalysis2025}. But LLMs are increasingly used not only to generate text but also to edit human writing, and it is unclear whether the two leave the same trace. We show that AI generation leaves a consistent ``stylometric footprint'': a small subset of features, primarily entropy and lexical diversity, consistently separates AI-generated text from human writing across 8 LLMs and 5 domains, while the remaining features depend heavily on the domain and generator. AI editing, however, does not reproduce the same footprint. Relative to their human-written sources, AI-edited texts show only a small increase in lexical diversity and a decrease in entropy, rather than the joint increase that characterizes AI generation. Lexical density, which contributes little to generation, instead becomes the dominant editing-associated signal. Stylometric features therefore separate AI-edited text from AI-generated text but are substantially less effective at separating it from human-written text. Our results suggest that ``AI text'' is not a single phenomenon: generation and editing leave qualitatively different stylometric traces and should be studied separately.

cs.CL↗