Debate is efficient with your time
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
AI safety via debate uses two competing models to help a human judge verify complex computational tasks. Previous work has established what problems debate can solve in principle, but has not analysed the practical cost of human oversight: how many queries must the judge make to the debate transcript? We introduce Debate Query Complexity}(DQC), the minimum number of bits a verifier must inspect to correctly decide a debate. Surprisingly, we find that PSPACE/poly (the class of problems which debate can efficiently decide) is precisely the class of functions decidable with O(log n) queries. This characterisation shows that debate is remarkably query-efficient: even for highly complex problems, logarithmic oversight suffices. We also establish that functions depending on all their input bits require Omega(log n) queries, and that any function computable by a circuit of size s satisfies DQC(f) <= log(s) + 3. Interestingly, this last result implies that proving DQC lower bounds of log(n) + 6 for languages in P would yield new circuit lower bounds, connecting debate query complexity to central questions in circuit complexity.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 3 of its 7 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 9 Feb 2026.
Builds on
3 of 7 references.
References · 3
- 2018AI safety via debatecited by 400
- 2023Scalable AI Safety via Doubly-Efficient Debatecited by 57
- 2025Avoiding Obfuscation with Prover-Estimator Debatecited by 14
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.
2 papers.
- 2026Knowledge Divergence and the Value of Debate for Scalable Oversightcited by 2
- 2026When Honesty is Not Enough in AI Debatecited by 0
- 2026When Honesty is Not Enough in AI Debate24 Sep 2026
- 2026Knowledge Divergence and the Value of Debate for Scalable Oversight5 Mar 2026