The logic of NTQR evaluations of noisy AI agents: Complete postulates and logically consistent error correlations

Abstract: In his "ship of state" allegory (\textit{Republic}, Book VI, 488) Plato poses a question -- how can a crew of sailors presumed to know little about the art of navigation recognize the true pilot among them? The allegory argues that a simple majority voting procedure cannot safely determine who is most qualified to pilot a ship when the voting members are ignorant or biased. We formalize Plato's concerns by considering the problem in AI safety of monitoring noisy AI agents in unsupervised settings. An algorithm evaluating AI agents using unlabeled data would be subject to the evaluation dilemma - how would we know the evaluation algorithm was correct itself? This endless validation chain can be avoided by considering purely algebraic functions of the observed responses. We can construct complete postulates than can prove or disprove the logical consistency of any grading algorithm. A complete set of postulates exists whenever we are evaluating $N$ experts that took $T$ tests with $Q$ questions with $R$ responses each. We discuss evaluating binary classifiers that have taken a single test - the $(N,T=1,Q,R=2)$ tests. We show how some of the postulates have been previously identified in the ML literature but not recognized as such - the \textbf{agreement equations} of Platanios. The complete postulates for pair correlated binary classifiers are considered and we show how it allows for error correlations to be quickly calculated. An algebraic evaluator based on the assumption that the ensemble is error independent is compared with grading by majority voting on evaluations using the \uciadult and and \texttt{two-norm} datasets. Throughout, we demonstrate how the formalism of logical consistency via algebraic postulates of evaluation can help increase the safety of machines using AI algorithms.