arXiv — Machine Learning · · 4 min read

When May a Model Replace the Experiment? Audits, Licenses, and the Price of Trust in Surrogate-Driven Design

Mirrored from arXiv — Machine Learning for archival readability. Support the source by reading on the original site.

Computer Science > Machine Learning

arXiv:2608.01378 (cs)
[Submitted on 2 Aug 2026]

Title:When May a Model Replace the Experiment? Audits, Licenses, and the Price of Trust in Surrogate-Driven Design

Authors:Shuangxiu (Max)Ma, Wenhe (Zachary)Zhao
View a PDF of the paper titled When May a Model Replace the Experiment? Audits, Licenses, and the Price of Trust in Surrogate-Driven Design, by Shuangxiu (Max) Ma and Wenhe (Zachary) Zhao
View PDF HTML (experimental)
Abstract:Design campaigns in chemistry, materials science, and machine learning share a bottleneck: determining how good a candidate truly is requires an expensive evaluation - an experiment, a first-principles simulation, or a full training run. Machine-learning surrogates that predict these outcomes are increasingly used not only to propose candidates but to grade them, and even to feed their own predictions back into the search as though they were measurements. Through mathematical analysis validated on three exhaustively ground-truthed design tasks, we establish when this practice is safe, what any certificate of safety must cost, and when the substitution provably pays. Predictive accuracy cannot anchor trust: near-perfect R^2 is compatible with worst-possible selections, and screening N candidates inflates the over-prediction at the selected candidate by a quantifiable "selection tax" with matching upper and lower bounds. Safety follows instead from an architectural rule - predictions may propose and train without restriction, but every certified conclusion must rest on true evaluations - which is sufficient with no assumptions on the surrogate, and necessary, since admitting predictions into certification with the standing of measurements opens a deterministic self-confirmation failure mode. We derive the minimal criterion under which a model may act as an oracle (rank preservation, not accuracy), show that trust must be purchased through selection-aware audits that are optimal in query complexity, and prove a dichotomy fixing when audited surrogates cut certified evaluation cost. Across 432 surrogate fits over six task-regime conditions, the audit statistic tracks deployed search performance at Spearman rank correlation 0.80-0.99, while the rank correlation of R^2 with deployed regret falls as low as 0.33; audited screening reduces certified oracle cost by a measured factor of 25.
Comments: 47 pages (18 pages main text, 29 pages Supporting Information), 9 figures, 2 tables, 70 references. SI contains complete proofs of all theorems, extended experiments, and the verification methodology
Subjects: Machine Learning (cs.LG)
MSC classes: 62G15, 68T05, 62L05
ACM classes: G.3; I.2.6
Cite as: arXiv:2608.01378 [cs.LG]
  (or arXiv:2608.01378v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
  https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.01378
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

Submission history

From: Shuangixu(Max) Ma [view email]
[v1] Sun, 2 Aug 2026 16:59:29 UTC (1,759 KB)
Full-text links:

Access Paper:

    View a PDF of the paper titled When May a Model Replace the Experiment? Audits, Licenses, and the Price of Trust in Surrogate-Driven Design, by Shuangxiu (Max) Ma and Wenhe (Zachary) Zhao
  • View PDF
  • HTML (experimental)
  • TeX Source

Current browse context:

cs.LG
< prev   |   next >
Change to browse by:
cs

References & Citations

Loading...

BibTeX formatted citation

loading...
Data provided by:

Bookmark

BibSonomy Reddit
Bibliographic Tools

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer Toggle
Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers Toggle
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps Toggle
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite.ai Toggle
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)
Code, Data, Media

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv Toggle
alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)
Links to Code Toggle
CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)
DagsHub Toggle
DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)
GotitPub Toggle
Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)
Huggingface Toggle
Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)
ScienceCast Toggle
ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)
Demos

Demos

Replicate Toggle
Replicate (What is Replicate?)
Spaces Toggle
Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)
Spaces Toggle
TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)
Related Papers

Recommenders and Search Tools

Link to Influence Flower
Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)
Core recommender toggle
CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)
IArxiv recommender toggle
IArxiv Recommender (What is IArxiv?)
About arXivLabs

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Discussion (0)

Sign in to join the discussion. Free account, 30 seconds — email code or GitHub.

Sign in →

No comments yet. Sign in and be the first to say something.

More from arXiv — Machine Learning