Loading
Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · October 5, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Numerous agentic workflows are based on a generator-verifier loop: a generator proposes candidates, a cheap verifier scores them, and the workflow terminates when a proposal is verified as good enough. The verifier typically proxies a more costly ground-truth oracle, and as the generator searches adaptively against it, false acceptances may accumulate. Proposals can pass the proxy but fail under the costlier ground-truth check. We study when to stop these loops while controlling the false discovery rate of the accepted proposals. Our construction introduces tools of independent interest in distribution-free statistical testing and conformal risk control, including analysis of $e$-values constructed through index betting and a novel conformal risk control procedure for non-monotone losses. We validate the approach in synthetic settings and on a protein-design benchmark.