{"slug": "seeking-arxiv-endorsement-in-cs-or-econ", "title": "Seeking arxiv endorsement in CS or Econ", "summary": "A researcher is seeking an arXiv endorsement for a paper that proposes a framework to apply quantitative investment-analysis methods, such as sensitivity analysis and shadow pricing, to AI-enabled software systems. The paper argues that AI infrastructure spending can be evaluated with the same rigor as physical technologies, potentially challenging the common practice of buying the largest AI models. The work is presented as a conjecture awaiting empirical validation.", "body_md": "I am seeking an arXiv endorsement. My paper is in software engineering / applied economics of technology decisions, so the person would need to have published on arXiv in computer science (cs) or economics (econ).\n\nIn one line: the paper argues that AI-enabled software can be brought under the same quantitative investment-analysis discipline that engineers already use for physical technologies, so that AI infrastructure spending can be reasoned about with sensitivity analysis, binding constraints, and shadow prices, the way a CFO would want.\n\nThe problem it addresses: In classical engineering, you can put a governing equation on the board (how a rocket’s range depends on its mass, say) and from it derive exactly where the next dollar of investment pays off most, and at what point it stops paying. Software especially AI systems, has had no equivalent, so the largest technology budgets in many firms are allocated by conviction rather than by analysis.\n\nThe move it makes: Rather than inventing a “governing equation for software” (which would be empty), the paper shows that established, separately-known results, the semantics of programs, the empirical scaling laws of AI models, and the statistics of their errors, can be organized so that existing technology-investment machinery runs over an AI-enabled system. The key idea is a classification of technologies by how determinate their governing relationship is, which sorts each part of an AI pipeline to the law that governs it.\n\nWhy it matters (the economics): it makes AI investment decisions commensurable with the rest of the capital portfolio, you can compare a verification-infrastructure investment against any other on the same basis (marginal value, constraint, headroom). It also shows that the standard intuition “buy the biggest model” is often wrong once the binding constraint is identified, a claim with direct budget consequences.\n\nIts standing: it is presented honestly as a conjecture, argued and internally coherent, consistent with the established results it draws on, but not yet empirically proven. The empirical validation on real systems is named as open work.", "url": "https://wpnews.pro/news/seeking-arxiv-endorsement-in-cs-or-econ", "canonical_source": "https://discuss.huggingface.co/t/seeking-arxiv-endorsement-in-cs-or-econ/177798#post_1", "published_at": "2026-07-14 06:39:37+00:00", "updated_at": "2026-07-14 08:30:44.068211+00:00", "lang": "en", "topics": ["artificial-intelligence", "ai-infrastructure", "ai-policy", "ai-research"], "entities": ["arXiv"], "alternates": {"html": "https://wpnews.pro/news/seeking-arxiv-endorsement-in-cs-or-econ", "markdown": "https://wpnews.pro/news/seeking-arxiv-endorsement-in-cs-or-econ.md", "text": "https://wpnews.pro/news/seeking-arxiv-endorsement-in-cs-or-econ.txt", "jsonld": "https://wpnews.pro/news/seeking-arxiv-endorsement-in-cs-or-econ.jsonld"}}