Towards a Theory of Learnability via Debate

Debate has been recently proposed as a training protocol that is hoped to produce more aligned models even as model capabilities scale. The idea is that the human, instead of providing supervision in the form of labels, judges a debate between two models that compete to prove the correctness of opposite labels. It can be shown that functions of a much higher computational complexity can be correctly judged in this way, compared to the complexity of functions that can be directly evaluated using a computationally weak evaluator. This suggests that perhaps debate can be used to teach very complicated functions to models. However, previous work has largely ignored the fact that this is a training protocol, and simply analyzes the game being played between the two debaters for a known judge. We take the first steps towards understanding the learning problem implicit within the protocol, by formulating it as an online learning problem. We show that once we formulate the learning problem precisely, there are cases where the best way to learn given access to a judge is different from running an adversarial debate. This motivates us to define a cooperative version of the protocol, whose learnability we characterize using a combinatorial dimension. We also consider the possibility of the human judge being fallible and occasionally judging the debate incorrectly. We show that a small number of errors in judgement can lead to a large error in learning.