If machine learning models were to achieve superhuman abilities at various reasoning or decision-making tasks, how would we go about evaluating such models, given that humans would necessarily be poor proxies for ground truth? In this paper, we propose a framework for evaluating superhuman models via consistency checks. Our premise is that while the correctness of superhuman decisions may be impossible to evaluate, we can still surface mistakes if the model's decisions fail to satisfy certain logical, human-interpretable rules. We instantiate our framework on three tasks where correctness of decisions is hard to evaluate due to either superhuman model abilities, or to otherwise missing ground truth: evaluating chess positions, forecasting future events, and making legal judgments. We show that regardless of a model's (possibly superhuman) performance on these tasks, we can discover logical inconsistencies in decision making. For example: a chess engine assigning opposing valuations to semantically identical boards; GPT-4 forecasting that sports records will evolve non-monotonically over time; or an AI judge assigning bail to a defendant only after we add a felony to their criminal record.

翻译：如果机器学习模型在各种推理或决策任务上达到超人类水平，鉴于人类必然难以作为真实标注的可靠代理，我们应如何评估这类模型？本文提出一种通过一致性检查评估超人类模型的框架。我们的核心观点是：虽然超人类决策的正确性可能无法直接评估，但当模型决策违反某些可解释的逻辑规则时，我们仍能识别其错误。我们在三个因超人类能力或缺失真实标注而难以评估决策正确性的任务上实例化该框架：国际象棋局面评估、未来事件预测及法律判决。研究表明，无论模型在这些任务中表现如何（可能达到超人类水平），我们都能发现其决策中的逻辑不一致性。例如：国际象棋引擎对语义相同的棋盘赋予相反估值；GPT-4预测体育纪录会随时间非单调演进；或AI法官仅在被告犯罪记录增加重罪后才对其批准保释。