arXiv:2610.02557v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: As powerful AI systems reach and sometimes surpass the abilities of human experts across a range of cognitively demanding tasks, the problem of accurate oversight and supervision of these systems has become increasingly urgent. One promising approach is AI debate, which seeks to leverage a debate between two powerful AIs to break complex questions down into simpler claims that can be easily judged directly. Theoretical work on debate has formalized this intuition in the language of computational complexity theory, where the goal is to design protocols (i.e., rules of the debate game) that provide rigorous guarantees on correctness for judging solutions to complex problems with limited supervision. Specifically, the current best protocol has been shown to work for all problems that have sufficiently stable decompositions into subproblems. In this paper, we design a new protocol for this same class of problems that improves on the prior work in several ways. First, correctness holds in a worst-case rather than an average-case sense. Second, being honest and correct is a dominant-strategy equilibrium for both debaters, rather than a Stackelberg equilibrium. Finally, we prove black-box lower bounds, showing that our new protocol is instance-wise optimal. That is, no protocol for this class of problems can outperform ours while making only black-box queries to human judgments. We obtain these results by relating the notion of stable problem decompositions to the concept of fractional block sensitivity from query complexity.
Abstract: As powerful AI systems reach and sometimes surpass the abilities of human experts across a range of cognitively demanding tasks, the problem of accurate oversight and supervision of these systems has become increasingly urgent. One promising approach is AI debate, which seeks to leverage a debate between two powerful AIs to break complex questions down into simpler claims that can be easily judged directly. Theoretical work on debate has formalized this intuition in the language of computational complexity theory, where the goal is to design protocols (i.e., rules of the debate game) that provide rigorous guarantees on correctness for judging solutions to complex problems with limited supervision. Specifically, the current best protocol has been shown to work for all problems that have sufficiently stable decompositions into subproblems. In this paper, we design a new protocol for this same class of problems that improves on the prior work in several ways. First, correctness holds in a worst-case rather than an average-case sense. Second, being honest and correct is a dominant-strategy equilibrium for both debaters, rather than a Stackelberg equilibrium. Finally, we prove black-box lower bounds, showing that our new protocol is instance-wise optimal. That is, no protocol for this class of problems can outperform ours while making only black-box queries to human judgments. We obtain these results by relating the notion of stable problem decompositions to the concept of fractional block sensitivity from query complexity.
This article has been indexed from cs.AI updates on arXiv.org
Read the original article: