machine learning platform operators

Abstract: Multi-agent large language model (LLM) debate is often evaluated by whether final answers improve, but movement is not necessarily improvement: the same discussion can rescue an initially wrong majority or destroy an initially correct one. Standard final-accuracy evaluations conflate these opposing mechanisms. We introduce an auditable protocol for homogeneous debate on multiple-choice questions (MCQs) that records each run as a transition ledger over collapse, correction, onset, and signed intervention utility. On 6,925 MMLU-Pro debates, the protocol identifies 253 collapses and a parallel correction ledger that changes how interventions should be judged. Replay experiments reveal the central tradeoff: a leave-one-model-out probe-gated freeze prevents 29 collapses but loses 108 corrections under equal weights, so collapse prevention alone can recommend the wrong policy. A compact pre-debate 8-probe screen is a triage signal: its unadjusted family-level association with conditional-collapse risk is high (G=7, Spearman rho=0.893, exact two-sided p=0.0123), but initial-majority accuracy is a close comparator (rho=0.821; family partial rho=0.767, p=0.0877), so we do not treat it as calibrated or capability-adjusted prediction. Round-level traces localize many collapses to the first debate round, where early disagreement can precede both harmful cascades and useful recovery. We release replayable schemas, coders, audits, cost cards, and zero-API rebuild scripts so future model-scaffold rows can be compared under the same denominators and signed utility ledger.

Abstract: Progress in machine learning cannot outpace our ability to verify it. With an explosion in papers today, every scientific claim rests initially on trust in the trainer, leading to uneven evaluation, baselines, and forestalling of reliable progress. Traditionally, the burden of verification falls on the reader, who must reproduce expensive training runs. This strategy is impractical due to an explosion in slop contributions, diversity of methods, and the sheer compute required. We put the burden of proof where it belongs, on the trainer, and in the process also cut the overall cost of verification significantly. We introduce Witnesses, a method for certifying training, data usage and evaluation in a neural network training run. Our key insight is that fast behavioral fingerprints with occasional replay challenges are sufficient for auditing neural network training. Our method is applicable at scale with minimal overhead to the trainer, is cheap for the verifier, rejects bad training runs with amplifiable probability, and allows for exact queries of both data inclusion and exclusion. We test our method on language model training runs from 100M to 2B scales, across DDP and FSDP, and demonstrate this minimal overhead. We also introduce a self-regulating leaderboard of "auto-certified" training runs that enables shared baselines and progress. We invite the community to participate in the leaderboard to improve reproducibility in machine learning.