How to Avoid Debate: Scalable AI Safety via Doubly-Efficient Interactive Proofs

Reliably knowing when a language model is correct is almost as important as being correct. We introduce prover-verifier deliberation (PVD), an inference-time protocol grounded in interactive proof theory, as a mechanism for selective prediction: the protocol produces both an answer and a structured confidence verdict, allowing a system to report high-confidence answers while abstaining on uncertain cases. In each dialogue, a prover defends a candidate answer through checkable sub-claims while a verifier issues targeted challenges and returns \textsc{Accept}, \textsc{Challenge}, or \textsc{Reject}. Because frozen language models are imperfect provers and verifiers operating over a noisy channel, formal soundness and completeness guarantees do not transfer; instead, we characterize the protocol empirically through its coverage-precision behavior. Our main experiment uses Claude Sonnet 4.6 as prover and Claude Haiku 4.5 as verifier on GPQA Diamond. Questions accepted with no answer revision, which we call Accept + No Change (ANC), are reported as the high-confidence subset; we evaluate this subset by its precision and coverage. ANC separates reliable from unreliable answers, yielding a $\sim$30pp HC-Prec gap over the non-ANC complement. Robustness experiments with GPT and Gemini pairings show that high HC-Prec can transfer across model families, while verifier strictness and domain competence largely determine the size of the selection gap. On Humanity's Last Exam, weaker prover-verifier pairings can collapse or invert the ANC signal, illustrating a practical failure mode when the verifier operates outside its effective region. Comparisons with self-consistency, universal self-consistency, multi-agent debate, and Reflexion suggest that prover-verifier deliberation supplies a distinct argument-defensibility signal for selective prediction.

When 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. Passed checks accumulate evidence toward an acceptance threshold. We prove anytime-valid soundness against adaptive provers: the probability of ever accepting a false claim is at most a chosen error level, provided the task supplies bounds on false passes and human checking errors that remain valid after every relevant history. A finite-horizon completeness bound additionally requires bounds on the adequacy of honest responses and sufficient diagnostic progress. Further checks can strengthen the evidence for acceptance, but each requires another adequate response and reliable human effort. Whether this tradeoff permits certification depends on the verifier's effort budget, cognitive load, expertise, and fatigue. We identify conditions under which the supplied bounds certify a specified sequence of local checks but not a specified global check under the same resource budgets.

When a probabilistic predictor answers many conditional-probability queries, are its answers self-consistent, and can this be verified in polynomial time? This problem is of interest for AI safety, where safety is derived from honesty about probabilistic predictions of unwanted outcomes potentially caused by an AI action. We construct an interactive PCP as follows. Let a predictive model be specified by a probability circuit P and a circuit Q which outputs confidence in predictions. Together, P and Q implicitly specify exponentially many probabilistic claims. We show a protocol in which a polynomial-time verifier can verify the approximate consistency of (P,Q). The verifier is given the pair of circuits (P,Q), which it evaluates at only a few points; alongside them it is given a proof oracle, an encoding of a witnessing probability distribution allegedly consistent with the predictions of (P,Q), which it reads at a few locations while interacting with a single untrusted prover. En route, we must ensure the existence of a sparse witnessing distribution consistent with the model's predictions. To do so, we first consider witness distributions for the consistency of explicit probabilistic claims, rather than claims specified by a predictor: say m claims, each of the form Pr[Y = 1 | X = x] = p, over n Boolean variables. Building on work initiated by Nilsson (Artif. Intell., 1986), we place l_2-approximate probabilistic consistency of explicit claims in NP, with certificates of length O(mn + log B) in the input bit-precision B; we further show how a small additive completeness-soundness gap removes the dependence on B. Together these results provide a complexity-theoretic foundation for certifying the self-consistency of probabilistic predictors. We view our interactive PCP as a first step toward training predictive models to prove their own consistency.