Prover-Verifier Games improve legibility of LLM outputs

AI-generated keywords: Prover-Verifier Games Legibility Large Language Models (LLMs) Training Algorithm Human Comprehension

AI-generated Key Points

The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the key points are generated using the paper metadata rather than the full article.

  • Authors explore the concept of legibility in Large Language Models (LLMs) by focusing on solving grade-school math problems
  • Importance of clear and easily verifiable reasoning to enhance confidence in LLM outputs is highlighted
  • Solely optimizing solutions for correctness can compromise legibility
  • Introduction of a novel training algorithm inspired by the Prover-Verifier Game proposed by Anil et al. in 2021
  • Algorithm involves training small verifiers, "helpful" provers, and "sneaky" provers to improve solution accuracy and resilience against adversarial attacks
  • Improvement observed in helpful prover's accuracy and verifier's resilience over the training period
  • Training for legibility transfers effectively to humans verifying solution correctness under time constraints
  • Human accuracy increases when validating solutions from helpful prover but decreases when assessing those from sneaky prover
  • Training with small verifiers enhances output legibility in large LLMs for human comprehension
  • Leveraging legibility training against small verifiers improves alignment between superhuman models and human understanding
Also access our AI generated: Comprehensive summary, Lay summary, Blog-like article; or ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant.

Authors: Jan Hendrik Kirchner, Yining Chen, Harri Edwards, Jan Leike, Nat McAleese, Yuri Burda

Abstract: One way to increase confidence in the outputs of Large Language Models (LLMs) is to support them with reasoning that is clear and easy to check -- a property we call legibility. We study legibility in the context of solving grade-school math problems and show that optimizing chain-of-thought solutions only for answer correctness can make them less legible. To mitigate the loss in legibility, we propose a training algorithm inspired by Prover-Verifier Game from Anil et al. (2021). Our algorithm iteratively trains small verifiers to predict solution correctness, "helpful" provers to produce correct solutions that the verifier accepts, and "sneaky" provers to produce incorrect solutions that fool the verifier. We find that the helpful prover's accuracy and the verifier's robustness to adversarial attacks increase over the course of training. Furthermore, we show that legibility training transfers to time-constrained humans tasked with verifying solution correctness. Over course of LLM training human accuracy increases when checking the helpful prover's solutions, and decreases when checking the sneaky prover's solutions. Hence, training for checkability by small verifiers is a plausible technique for increasing output legibility. Our results suggest legibility training against small verifiers as a practical avenue for increasing legibility of large LLMs to humans, and thus could help with alignment of superhuman models.

Submitted to arXiv on 18 Jul. 2024

Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant

You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.

The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the AI assistant only knows about the paper metadata rather than the full article.

AI assistant instructions?

Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 2407.13692v1

This paper's license doesn't allow us to build upon its content and the summarizing process is here made with the paper's metadata rather than the article.

In their paper titled "Prover-Verifier Games Improve Legibility of LLM Outputs," authors Jan Hendrik Kirchner, Yining Chen, Harri Edwards, Jan Leike, Nat McAleese, and Yuri Burda explore the concept of legibility in Large Language Models (LLMs) by focusing on solving grade-school math problems. They highlight the importance of clear and easily verifiable reasoning to enhance confidence in LLM outputs. The study reveals that solely optimizing solutions for correctness can compromise legibility. To address this issue, the authors introduce a novel training algorithm inspired by the Prover-Verifier Game proposed by Anil et al. in 2021. are used to improve in . The authors focus on solving grade-school math problems and emphasize the importance of clear and easily verifiable reasoning to enhance confidence in LLM outputs. However, solely optimizing solutions for correctness can compromise legibility. To address this issue, they introduce a novel inspired by the Prover-Verifier Game proposed by Anil et al. in 2021. The algorithm involves iteratively training small verifiers to assess solution correctness, "helpful" provers to generate accurate solutions accepted by the verifier, and "sneaky" provers to produce incorrect solutions that deceive the verifier. Through their experiments, the authors observe an improvement in the helpful prover's accuracy and the verifier's resilience against adversarial attacks over the training period. Moreover, they demonstrate that training for legibility transfers effectively to humans tasked with verifying solution correctness under time constraints. Throughout LLM training, human accuracy increases when validating solutions from the helpful prover but decreases when assessing those from the sneaky prover. This underscores the efficacy of training with small verifiers to enhance output legibility in large LLMs for human comprehension. The results suggest that leveraging legibility training against small verifiers presents a practical approach to improving alignment between superhuman models and human understanding. By emphasizing clear reasoning and easy verification processes, this research contributes valuable insights towards enhancing confidence and interpretability in LLM outputs.
Created on 22 Jul. 2024

Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting

Score: 0

Why do we need votes?

Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.

The previous summary was created more than a year ago and can be re-run (if necessary) by clicking on the Run button below.

The license of this specific paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the summarizing tools will be run using the paper metadata rather than the full article. However, it still does a good job, and you can also try our tools on papers with more open licenses.

Similar papers summarized with our AI tools

Navigate through even more similar papers through a

tree representation

Look for similar papers (in beta version)

By clicking on the button above, our algorithm will scan all papers in our database to find the closest based on the contents of the full papers and not just on metadata. Please note that it only works for papers that we have generated summaries for and you can rerun it from time to time to get a more accurate result while our database grows.

Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.