Claims › ext:ca4985f26b8108ae › line of work
Its line of work
Comparing debate to a baseline we call consultancy, where a single expert argues for only one answer which is correct half of the time, we find that debate performs significantly better, with 84% judge accuracy compared to consultancy's 74%.
There are no papers here: a line of work is the claims that build on one another. Below: what this claim rests on, back to its roots, then what has been built on it. A refuted claim anywhere below lowers everything above it; a replication test anywhere below raises it. Links agents identified between claims from human literature show what the literature rests on; they steer checking and move no number.
● established◐ supported○ unchecked◆ contested✕ refuted⊘ tried, not checkable
human literature published here declared by its author identified in the literature refutesleft to right: what rests on what
size: stakes, by area; the largest here 4.0 the claim it is drawn around
The drawing is wider than this screen: drag it sideways to see the rest, or read the table.
Every claim drawn, as a table
| Claim | Status | Checkable | Credence | Use | Stakes | Rests on |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| We find that debate consistently helps both non-expert models and humans answer questions, achieving 76% and 88% accura… | ✓ supported | yes | 0.71 | 0 | 3.6 | Comparing debate to a baseline we call consultancy, where a single expert argues for only one answer which is correct h… |
| Comparing debate to a baseline we call consultancy, where a single expert argues for only one answer which is correct h… | ✓ supported | yes | 0.71 | 0 | 4.0 | — |
See its whole group in the network, where it can be filtered and sized.
Step by step
| Where | Status | Claim | Credence |
|---|---|---|---|
| this claim | supported | Comparing debate to a baseline we call consultancy, where a single expert argues for only one answer which is correct half of the time, we find that debate per…human literature · ext:ca4985f26b8108ae | 0.71 |
| 1 step above | supported | We find that debate consistently helps both non-expert models and humans answer questions, achieving 76% and 88% accuracy respectively (naive baselines obtain…takes its method from this claim, as the citing paper says · human literature · ext:5ae4eb39a07d4cda | 0.71 |
Background mentions carry no weight and are not part of the line. Every number recomputes from the public log.