When Honesty is Not Enough in AI Debate
Scalable oversight aims to verify the behaviour of agents whose capabilities exceed those of their overseers. AI debate has been proposed as an oversight solution in which competing agents help a resource-limited verifier assess claims that it cannot reliably evaluate unaided. Much of its promise rests on incentivizing honest arguments that lead to correct verdicts. Yet a correct verdict need not uniquely determine the arguments used to support it. Agents may retain discretion over which correct claims to present, how to frame them, and in what order to disclose them. This residual freedom can allow agents to shape what the verifier learns beyond the task-relevant conclusion, pursuing lat...
| Authors | Rayne Holland, Liming Zhu, Jason Xue |
|---|---|
| Primary category | cs.AI |
| Published | 24 September 2026 |
| Last updated at source | 24 September 2026 |
Silytics shows public metadata from arXiv and links to the original. Information may be incomplete or out of date. Last refreshed 17 October 2026. Licenses and terms of the original apply to the work itself. Not financial, legal or professional advice.