Human-LLM Deliberation as Interactive Proof: Conditions for Verifiability Without Transparency
A paper models human-LLM deliberation as an interactive proof with soundness bounds for accepting claims.
The paper models human-LLM deliberation as an interactive proof between an unrestricted LLM prover and a resource-bounded human verifier. The verifier requests and checks supporting details without access to the model's internal state, accumulating passed checks toward an acceptance threshold. It proves anytime-valid soundness against adaptive provers when bounds on false passes and human checking errors remain valid after every relevant history. Finite-horizon completeness also requires adequate honest responses and sufficient diagnostic progress, and some local-check sequences can be certified when an equivalent global check cannot.
- A resource-bounded human checks LLM claims without seeing internals.
- Anytime-valid soundness bounds the chance of accepting a false claim.
- Completeness also needs adequate honest responses and diagnostic progress.
- Some local checks certify under budgets where a global check does not.
From the original article
1 min read at arxiv.orgWhen an LLM supplies an argument that a user could not readily construct, how can the user decide whether to accept its claim? Inspired by interactive proofs, we model human-LLM deliberation as an interaction between a prover with unrestricted internal search and a resource-bounded human verifier. The verifier requests and checks supporting details without access to the LLM's internal state.
By Baotong Zhang · arxiv.org
A short excerpt; the article and its images belong to the publisher. Summary, key facts and assessment above are AI-written from the article and can be wrong.