Following Goldwasser, Rothblum, Shafer, and Yehudayoff, who defined a framework for interactive proofs of learning [ITCS'21], we initiate the study of non-interactive proofs of learning. We define and study a new notion: Publicly-Verifiable Certificates of Statistical Validity (pvCSVs), which allow for public, distributionally-robust certification that the result of a learning algorithm is valid. In a pvCSV, a learner publishes a hypothesis $h$ and corresponding certificate $π$; then, any user, who holds a user-specific distribution, can read the pair $(h,π)$ and determine efficiently whether the hypothesis is valid according to the user-specific distribution. We construct pvCSVs in the context of Adaptive Statistical Query (SQ) Algorithms. To certify SQ algorithms that makes $k$ adaptive queries, we construct pvCSVs where the sample complexity scales with $O(\log k)$, whereas the sample complexity of the best learning algorithms scale with $\tilde{O}(\sqrt{k})$. More generally, we study proof systems for learning in the SQ model, demonstrating the model's strengths as well as its limitations.
As AI models continue to develop powerful capabilities, it becomes critical that we are able to verify that their output is aligned with our intentions. A recent line of work focuses on verification via debate, a model of interactive proofs where two competing powerful provers, or AI models, debate each other to convince a weak verifier, or a human, of the correctness of their claim. However, debate assumes that the two AI models possess equal abilities and that one of them is truthful, which may not be realistic. In this work, we show \emph{how to avoid debate}: we initiate the study of \emph{single-prover} interactive proofs for AI safety. Prior results in single-prover interactive proofs do not immediately carry over to the AI safety setting: for example, they do not work when the computation has access to an oracle, such as to human judgment or an external database such as the web. We present doubly-efficient single-prover interactive proofs and arguments for oracle-aided computations (also known as relativizing proofs), in the settings where (1) the computation is robust, in the sense that the output does not change if at most a small fraction of the answers to oracle queries are incorrect, or (2) the oracle is a low-degree polynomial. These results suggest that interactive verification is possible even without debate, under structured or noise-tolerant oracle access.