Title: Transcendence: Generative Models Can Outperform The Experts That Train Them
Venue: NeurIPS 2024
Accepted: yes
Keywords: theory

foundations

generative modelling

sequence modelling
Abstract: Generative models are trained with the simple objective of imitating the conditional probability distribution induced by the data they are trained on. Therefore, when trained on data generated by humans, we may not expect the artificial model to outperform the humans on their original objectives. In this work, we study the phenomenon of *transcendence*: when a generative model achieves capabilities that surpass the abilities of the experts generating its data. We demonstrate transcendence by training an autoregressive transformer to play chess from game transcripts, and show that the trained model can sometimes achieve better performance than all players in the dataset. We theoretically prove that transcendence is enabled by low-temperature sampling, and rigorously assess this experimentally. Finally, we discuss other sources of transcendence, laying the groundwork for future investigation of this phenomenon in a broader setting.

Transcendence: Generative Models Can Outperform The Experts That Train Them

Abstract

Generative models are trained with the simple objective of imitating the conditional probability distribution induced by the data they are trained on. Therefore, when trained on data generated by humans, we may not expect the artificial model to outperform the humans on their original objectives. In this work, we study the phenomenon of transcendence : when a generative model achieves capabilities that surpass the abilities of the experts generating its data. We demonstrate transcendence by training an autoregressive transformer to play chess from game transcripts, and show that the trained model can sometimes achieve better performance than all players in the dataset. 1 Wetheoretically prove that transcendence can be enabled by low-temperature sampling, and rigorously assess this claim experimentally. Finally, we discuss other sources of transcendence, laying the groundwork for future investigation of this phenomenon in a broader setting.

1 Introduction

Generative models (GMs) are typically trained to mimic human behavior. These humans may be skilled in their various human objectives: answering a question, creating art, singing a song. The model has only one objective: minimizing the cross-entropy loss with respect to the output distribution, thereby adjusting it to match the distribution of human labels 2 . Therefore, one might assume the model can, at best, match the performance of an expert on their human objectives. Is it possible for these models to surpass-to transcend -their expert sources in some domains?

1800

1800

1800

1600

1600

1600

MaxRatingSeenDuringTraining:1500

1400

1400

1400

Rating

Rating

Rating

1200

1200

1200

1000

1000

1000

800

800

800

1

1.5

30.50.75

1

1.5

1

1.5

Temperature (T)

Temperature (T)

Temperature (T)

Weillustrate an example of such transcendence in Figure 1, which measures the chess ratings (Glicko-2 [7]) of several transformer [35] models. Our experimental testbed is generative modeling on chess, which we choose as a domain for its well-understood, constrained nature. The transformer models are trained on public datasets of human chess transcripts, autoregressively predicting the next move in the game. To test for transcendence , we limit the maximal rating of the human players in the dataset below a specified score. We find that ChessFormer 1000 and ChessFormer 1300 (the latter number being the maximum rating seen during training) achieve significant levels of transcendence, surpassing the maximal rating seen in the dataset. Our focus is this capacity of a GM to transcend its expert sources by broadly outperforming any one expert. The key to our findings is the observation that GMs implicitly perform majority voting over the human experts. As these models are trained on a collection of many experts with diverse capacities, predilections, and biases, this majority vote oftentimes outperforms any individual expert, a phenomena that is known as 'wisdom of the crowd'.

Our objective is to formalize the notion of transcendence and focus narrowly on this source of improvement over the experts: the removal of diverse human biases and errors. We prove that this form of denoising is enabled by low-temperature sampling, which implicitly induces a majority vote. Our result draws a subtle but deep connection from our new setting to a rich prior literature on model ensembling [1, 6, 19], enabling several key results. We precisely characterize the conditions under which transcendence is possible, and give a rigorous theoretical framework for enabling future study into the phenomenon. To test the predictive power of our theory, we then empirically demonstrate these effects. Digging deeper into the effects of majority voting, we show that its advantage is primarily due to performing much better on a small subset of states-that is, under conditions that are likely key to determining the outcome of the game. We also find that diversity in the data is a necessary condition for practically effective majority voting, confirming our theoretical findings. In short:

Weformalize the notion of transcendence in generative models (Section 2).

We find a key insight explaining one cause of transcendence by connecting the case of denoising experts to model ensembling. In low temperature sampling settings, we prove that a generative model can transcend if trained on a single expert that makes mistakes uniformly at random. We then extend this result to transcending a collection of experts that are each skilled in different domains (Section 3).

Wetrain a chess transformer on game transcripts that only include players up to a particular skill level. We confirm our theoretical prediction that this model only surpasses the maximum rating of its expert data generators at low temperature settings (Section 4).

Wevisualize the distribution of changes in reward by setting a lower sampling temperature, attributing the increased performance to large improvements on a relatively small portion of states (Section 4.2).

Weexplore the necessity of dataset diversity, and the inability of ChessFormer to transcend when trained on less diverse datasets (Section 4.2).

2 Definition of Transcendence

Denote by X the (variable-length) input space and by Y the (finite) output space. Let F be the class of all functions mapping X ↦→ P ( Y ) (where we use the notation P ( Y ) to denote probability distributions over Y ). That is, the functions in F map inputs in X to probability distributions over Y , so each function f ∈F defines a conditional probability distribution of y ∈Y given x ∈X . We denote this distribution by f ( y | x ) .

Fix some input distribution p over X such that p has full support (namely, for every x ∈X we have p ( x ) > 0 ). Throughout the paper, we assume that our data is labeled by k experts, denoted f 1 ,...,f k ∈F . Namely, we assume that the inputs are sampled from the input distribution p and then each input x ∈X is labeled by some expert chosen uniformly at random 3 . This process induces a joint probability distribution over X ×Y , which we denote by D . Specifically, D( x,y ) = p ( x ) f ( y | x ) where f is the mixture of the expert distributions, namely

Wemeasure the quality of some prediction function f ∈F using a reward assigned to each input-output pair. Namely, we define a reward function r : X ×Y → R , s.t. for all x , the function r ( x, · ) is not constant (i.e., for every input x not all outputs have the same reward). We choose some test distribution p test over X , and for some f ∈F define the average reward of f over p test by:

Alearner has access to the distribution D , and needs to find a function that minimizes the cross-entropy loss over D . Namely, the learner chooses some function ˆ f ∈F s.t. ˆ f =argmin f ∈F E x ∼ p [ H ( f,f ) ] where H is the cross-entropy function.

Definition 1. We define 'transcendence' to be a setting of f 1 ,...,f k ∈F and p ∈ P ( X ) where:

In other words, transcendence describes cases where the learned predictor performs better (achieves better reward) than the best expert generating the data. Note that we are focusing on an idealized setting, where the learner has access to infinite amount of data from the distribution D , and can arbitrarily choose any function to fit the distribution (not limited to a particular choice of architecture or optimization constraints). As we will show, even in this idealized setting, transcendence can be impossible to achieve without further modifying the distribution.

Remark 1. Wehave made various simplifying assumptions when introducing our setting. For example, we assume that all experts share the same input distribution, we assume that all inputs have non-zero probability under the training distribution p , and we assume the experts are sampled uniformly at random. We leave a complete analysis of a more general setting to future work, and discuss this point further in section 6.

3 Conditions for Transcendence

In this section we analyze the necessary and sufficient conditions for transcendence in our setting. Webegin by showing that low-temperature sampling is necessary for transcendence in our specific setting. Then, we analyze specific sufficient conditions for transcendence, both in the case where the data is generated by a single expert and when the data is generated by multiple experts. We defer all proofs to Appendix A.

3.1 Low-Temperature Sampling is Necessary for Transcendence

Observe that by definition of ˆ f , and using standard properties of the cross-entropy loss, we get that ˆ f = f , as defined in Eq. (1). Therefore, the conditional probability distribution generated by ˆ f is simply an average of the distributions generated by the expert. Since the reward is a linear function of these distributions, we get that ˆ f never achieves transcendence:

?

Reward Rx(

T = 1.0

T = 0.75

T=

0.001

1.0

1.0

1.0

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

←<→→

Note that in our setting, we assume that all experts are sampled uniformly for a given input x . If instead this assumption is removed, then it may be possible to achieve transcendence with a bayesian weighting. We leave this analysis for future work.

3.2 Transcendence with Low-Temperature Sampling

Now, we consider a temperature sampling scheme over the learned function ˆ f . Namely, for some temperature τ > 0 , and some probability distribution q ∈ P ( Y ) , denote the softmax operator with temperature τ by softmax( q ; τ ) ∈ P ( Y ) s.t. softmax( q ; τ ) y = exp( q y /τ ) ∑ y ′ ∈Y exp( q y ′ /τ ) . Additionally, we define argmax( q ) ∈ P ( Y ) to be the uniform distribution over the maximal values of q , namely argmax( q ) =1 / | Y q | if y ∈ Y q and 0 if y / ∈ Y q , where Y q = { y ∈Y : q y =max( q ) } . Now, define ˆ f τ to be the temperature sampling of ˆ f , i.e. ˆ f τ ( ·| x )=softmax( ˆ f ( ·| x ); τ ) and ˆ f max the arg-max 'sampling' of ˆ f , i.e. ˆ f max ( ·| x )=argmax( ˆ f ( ·| x )) . Wenowshowthat if the arg-max predictor ˆ f max is better than the best expert, then transcendence is possible with low-temperature sampling.

Proposition 2. R p test ( ˆ f max ) > max i ∈ [ k ] R p test ( f i ) if and only if there exists some temperature τ ∈ (0 , 1) s.t. for all 0 ≤ τ ′ ≤ τ , it holds that R p test ( ˆ f τ ′ ) > max i ∈ [ k ] R p test ( f i ) .

The above shows that, even though transcendence cannot be achieved when directly modeling the distribution, it can be achieved by temperature sampling, assuming that the arg-max predictor achieves higher reward compared to all experts. In other words, we make the subtle connection here that lowtemperature sampling can be thought of as performning majority vote [1, 6] between the experts. Please see Appendix A for a formal proof of this connection. When the experts put non-negligible mass onto the best actions, the resulting majority vote may find the best action [9], which improves performance compared to individual experts (i.e., 'wisdom of the crowd') and thus achieve transcendence.

3.3 Denoising a Single Expert

We now turn to study particular cases where low-temperature sampling can lead to transcendence. The most simple case is of a single expert that outputs a correct but noisy prediction. Denote by f ∗ the

and δ ( condition ) is 1 if the condition is true and 0 otherwise. Now, for some ρ ∈ (0 , 1) , let f ρ be a 'noisy' expert, s.t., for all x , with probability ρ chooses a random output, and with probability 1 -ρ chooses an output according to the optimal expert f ∗ ( ·| x ) , namely f ρ ( y | x )= ρ/ |Y| +(1 -ρ ) f ∗ ( y | x ) . Weshow that transcendence is achieved with low-temperature sampling for data generated by f ρ :

Proposition 3. Assume the data is generated by a single expert f ρ . Then, there exists some temperature τ ∈ (0 , 1) s.t. for all τ ′ ≤ τ , the predictor ˆ f τ ′ achieves 'transcendence'.

3.4 Transcendence from Multiple Experts

Next, we consider the case where the dataset is generated by multiple experts that complement each other in terms of their ability to correctly predict the best output. For example, consider the case where the input space is partitioned into k disjoint subsets, X = X 1 ˙ ∪ ... ˙ ∪X k , s.t. the i -th expert performs well on the subset X i , but behaves randomly on other subsets. Namely, assume the expert f i behaves as

is 1 if the condition is true and 0 otherwise. We show that, assuming that the test distribution p test is not concentrated on a single subset X i , we achieve transcendence with low-temperature sampling:

̸

Proposition 4. Let p test be some distribution s.t. there are at least two subsets X i = X j s.t. p test ( X i ) ,p test ( X j ) > 0 . Then, if the data is generated by f 1 ,...,f k , there exists some temperature τ ∈ (0 , 1) s.t. for all τ ′ ≤ τ , the predictor ˆ f τ ′ achieves 'transcendence'.

In order to build intuition for Proposition 4, see Appendix C for an intuitive diagram.

4 Experiments

To evaluate the predictive power of our impossibility result of transcendence with no temperature sampling (Proposition 1) as well as our result of transcendence from multiple experts with low temperature sampling (Proposition 2), we turn to modeling and training chess players. Chess stands out as an attractive option for several reasons. Chess is a well-understood domain and more constrained than other settings such as natural language generation, lending to easier and stronger analysis. Evaluation of skill in chess is also natural and well-studied, with several rigorous statistical rating systems available. In this paper, we use the Glicko-2 rating system [7], which is also adopted by https://lichess.org , the free and open-source online chess server from which we source our dataset.

4.1 Experimental Setup

Training Details. Wetrained several 50 Mparameter autoregressive transformer decoders following best practices from modern large model training, including a cosine learning rate schedule and similar batch size-learning rate ratios as prescribed by the OPT-175B team [37]. Our dataset consists of human chess games from the lichess.org open source database from January 2023 to October 2023. In total, this dataset contains approximately one billion games. In this setting, an expert is a specific individual player. To test for transcendence, we truncate this dataset by a maximum rating, so that during training a model only sees data up to a given rating. We train our model on the next-token prediction objective, and represent our chess games as Portable Game Notation (PGN) strings, such as 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5... 1/2-1/2 . Note that we do not give any rating or reward information during training-the only input the model sees are the moves and the outcome of the game. We tokenize our dataset at the 32 -symbol character level. (For further details, see Appendix E.) Our model plays chess 'blind'without direct access to the board state-and, furthermore, is never explicitly given the rules of the game: at no point is play constrained to valid outputs for a given piece or board state. Nontrivial chess skill is therefore not straightforward to acquire, and if not for the surprising capabilities of modern large transformers, one might imagine such a model would fail to learn even the basic rules of playing chess. This blindfolded setting has also been studied by prior work [23, 30], as discussed further in section 5.

Onegapbetween our theory and practice is that in our theory, we assume that each expert is defined over the entire input space X . However, in the chess setting such full coverage is extremely unlikely to be the case after around move 15 , as there are more unique chess games than atoms in the universe due to the high branching factor of the game tree. To address this gap, we visualize the latent representation of our model in Figure 3, where we find the model is able to capture meaningful semantics regarding both

1.0

0.75

Reward

0.5

0.25

0.0

Ey~f*[rx] = 1.0

Ey~f*[rx] = 0.53

Ey~f*[rx] = 0.0

Ey~f*[rx] = 0.54

the relative advantage of a state, as well as the identity of the black and white player. This visualization illustrates the ability of our model to generalize by compressing games into some shared latent representation, enabling experts to generalize to unseen states, bridging this gap between theory and practice.

Evaluation. Weevaluate each model by its Glicko-2 ratings against Stockfish 16.1 [29], a popular open-source chess engine. Stockfish uses a traditional minimax search equipped with a bespoke CPUefficient neural network for evaluation [22] and α -β pruningforfurther efficiency. We evaluate Stockfish at levels 1, 3, and 5 with a 100ms timeout directly on Lichess' platform against the Maia [18] 1, 5, and 9 bots (human behavior cloned convolutional networks trained at rating bins 1100-1200, 1500-1600, and 1900-2000, respectively) for several hundred games, obtaining calibrated Glicko-2 ratings for Stockfish specifically on Lichess' platform ( 1552 ± 45 . 2 , 1842 ± 45 . 2 , 2142 ± 59 for Stockfish Levels 1, 3, and 5, respectively). Next, for evaluating our own models, we then play against Stockfish levels of 1, 3, and 5 for 100 games each, reaching a final rating calculation with 300 games. We then report both the Glicko-2 rating R as well as rating deviation RD of our models, where R ± 2 ∗ RD provides a 95% confidence interval. To play against Stockfish, we successively prompt our model with the current game PGN string. Note that our output is entirely unconstrained, and may be either illegal in the current board state or altogether unparsable. If our model fails to generate a valid legal move after 5 samples, we consider it to have lost. After generation, we give the updated board state to Stockfish and pass a new PGN string appended with the prior move of Stockfish back to our model. We repeat this process until the game ends.

4.2 Experimental Results

Main Result: Low-temperature sampling enables transcendence. In this section we attempt to answer our primary research question, can low-temperature sampling actually induce transcendence in practice? We test Proposition 2 by evaluating several ChessFormers across different temperature values, from 0 . 001 (nearly deterministic), to 1 . 0 (original distribution), to 1 . 5 (high entropy). In Figure 1 we definitively confirm the existence of transcendence. Our ChessFormer 1000 (where the latter number refers to the maximum rating seen during training) and ChessFormer 1300 models are able to transcend to around 1500 rating at temperature τ equal to 0 . 001 . Interestingly, ChessFormer 1500 is unable to transcend at test time, a result we further analyze in Dataset Diversity.

To more deeply understand when and why transcendence occurs, we investigate two questions. (1) Howdoes the reward function defined in Equation 2 shift with respect to low-temperature sampling? (2) Does transcendence rely on dataset diversity, as introduced theoretically in subsection 3.4?

Lowering temperature increases rewards in expectation on specific states, leading to transcendence over the full game. When playing chess, a low-skilled player may play reasonably well

until they make a significant blunder at a key point in play. If these errors are idiosyncratic, averaging across many experts would have a denoising effect, leaving the best moves with higher probability. Therefore, low-temperature sampling would move probability mass towards better moves in specific play contexts. Without low-temperature sampling, the model would still put probability mass onto blunders. To gain intuition for this idea, we visualize it theoretically in Appendix C and empirically in Figure 2 and Appendix B. This hypothesis motivates our first research question in this section: Does low-temperature sampling improve the expected reward very much for just some specific key game states, or a little for many game states?

To formalize this notion, we first define a 'favor' function, which captures the improvement in reward by following some new probability distribution over some baseline probability distribution. Our definition is inspired by the Performance Difference Lemma (PDL) [10] from Reinforcement Learning (RL), which establishes an equivalence between the change in performance from following some new policy (a probability distribution of actions given a state) over some old policy, and the expected value of the advantage function of the old policy sampled with respect to the new policy. In RL, the advantage function is defined as the difference between the value of taking a single action in a given state versus the expected value of following some policy distribution of actions in that state.

Here, we define the 'favor' of f ′ over f in x as the change in the reward function by comparing what f would have done when following f ′ for a given input x :

Where d f refers to the state visitation distribution [31] when following f in a sequential settinginformally, this variable can be thought of the distribution of states seen when sampling from f with a fixed transition function that takes in an input x , a output y , and outputs a next input x . Here, that transition function is given by the rules of chess and the opponent player. Given this favor function, we can now quantitatively explore the effects that lead to transcendence by setting the baseline f to be the original imitation-learned probability distribution (temperature τ =1 ), and f ′ as a low-temperature intervention on f (e.g. temperature τ =0 ). We can empirically calculate the reward by using the evaluation function [22] of Stockfish, an expert neural reward function that Stockfish uses to calculate its next move. This reward function is a neural network trained to predict the probability of winning through a sigmoid on a linear combination of handcrafted expert heuristics, such as amount of material versus opponent material, and number of moves to a potential checkmate.

0.6

f' = fr=0.001

f' = fr=0.75

0.4

BaselineE[Fl:0.o

0.2

E[F] : 2.15

E[F] : 0.99

0.0

-10.0

-7.5

-5.0

-2.5

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

Change in expected reward over base fr=1 probability distribution over individual states: F(f', f)

In Figure 4, we find that lowering the temperature has the effect of skewing the expected reward distribution to the right, especially for the green τ =0 . 001 distribution. This result implies that the model does not improve the expected reward by a small amount for many game states, but rather improves the expected reward by a relatively large amount for a few game states. Thus, τ =0 . 001 improves the expected reward (probability of winning) by an average of 2 . 15 ± 0 . 17 % , but for some states, this expected improvement is over 5%. Note that the original temperature expected reward can

be thought of as a Dirac distribution centered at 0 . The above finding answers our research question in this section: Low-temperature sampling is able improves the expected reward by relatively large amounts for some specific game states, which is likely why the ChessFormer 1000 and 1300 model was able to achieve transcendence.

In Table 1, we present the statistics of the favor function for different temperature values. From this table, we observe that as the temperature decreases, the topk accuracies monotonically increase, suggesting that the model becomes more consistent in selecting good moves. We also observe that although the model improves as temperature decreases, the probability of winning is still below 50% , meaning our model should tend to lose more games than it wins against Stockfish 1 . This result matches with our results in Figure 1, as the rating of Stockfish 1 is also higher than the reported rating for τ =0 . 001 ( 1550 for Stockfish 1 vs ∼ 1450 for Chessformer 1000 ). Overall, the analysis of the advantage statistics provides further evidence for the effectiveness of low-temperature sampling in inducing transcendence in chess models.

Dataset diversity is essential for transcendence. As we note in subsection 3.4, our theory requires dataset diversity as a necessary condition for enabling transcendence. Importantly, we find in Figure 1 that not all models are able to transcend. Unlike ChessFormer 1000 or 1300, the Chessformer 1500 fails to transcend. We hypothesize that this results is due to the fact that in the band of ratings from 1000 to 1500 , diversity does not significantly increase. If so, a 1000 rated player can be thought of as a noisy 1500 rated player, but a 1500 rated player cannot be thought of as a noisy 2000 rated player. In this section we ask the following research question: Is diversity in data required for enabling transcendence?

In Figure 5, we explore this research question by quantifying dataset diversity through the normalized entropy on the action distribution H f ( Y | X ) = E y ∼ f ( y | x = X ) [ -log 2 f ( y | x = X )] / log 2 |Y| . To gain intuition for this metric, imagine the action distribution of moves taken for any given state. Entropy will be higher for more uniform action distributions, and lower for more deterministic, peaked action distributions. The average entropy of these action distributions can therefore serve as a measurement of the diversity of the dataset. We normalize this entropy to the range [0 , 1] by dividing by the binary log of the number of legal moves: log 2 |Y| .

Importantly, we cannot calculate this normalized entropy for every state, as most states after move 16 in the midgame and before the engame are unique within the dataset and we therefore observe just a single action for thus states. Therefore our metric is limited in that it only considers opening moves, the beginning of the midgame, and the endgame. We consider only common states with greater than 100 actions by sampling 1 , 000 , 000 games from each dataset. The average entropy confirm our hypothesis: The < 1500 cut off dataset has on average less diversity than the < 1300 dataset, which has is again less than the < 1000 dataset. This result suggests that Chessformer 1500 likely is not transcendent due to a lack of diversity in its dataset. If the entropy instead stayed constant for each dataset, it would imply that each had a similar level of diversity. In such a case, we would expect that ChessFormer 1500 likely would also transcend. Instead, as predicted, it is likely not transcendent due to a lack of diversity.

4.3 Additional Settings

SQuADv2 Natural Language Temperature Denoising Experiment. We extend our analysis to the Natural Language Processing domain by running experiments on the Stanford Question Answering Dataset (SQuAD 2.0). We tested the effects of temperature denoising on the performance of several large language models (LLMs) of varying sizes. The SQuAD task involves reading comprehension and question-answering based on Wikipedia articles, making it an ideal setting to evaluate the impact of denoising on language models. We measured the exact-match, semantic-match, and F1 scores of the model outputs at different temperatures. The results show that temperature denoising leads to improved performance, corroborating the findings of our chess experiments and providing broader validation of the underlying mechanism of temperature denoising in diverse domains.

Exact Match (%) vs Temperature

Semantic Match (%) vs Temperature

70

60

70

Semantic Match (%)

60

50

Score

50

Exact Match (

500g

40

40

E

30

Mistral (7B)

Gemma 2 (2B)

30

Mistral (7B)

Gemma 2 (2B)

30

Mistral (7B)

Gemma 2 (2B)

GPT-2 (163M)

GPT-2 (163M)

GPT-2 (163M)

5

S

5

0

0

0

0.001 0.250.50.75

1

1.5

0.001 0.250.50.75

1

1.5

0.001 0.25 0.5 0.75

1

1.5

Temperature (T)

Temperature (T)

Temperature

（T

Toy Model Setting and Results. In addition, we develop a toy theoretical model to further study when transcendence is possible. This model involves a classification task with Gaussian input data and linearly separable classes. Experts label the data with noisy versions of the ground truth separator. We trained a linear model on a dataset labeled by random experts and observed the test accuracy for different temperature settings. The synthetic experiments demonstrated that transcendence occurs when expert diversity is high and temperature is low, aligning with our theoretical and empirical analysis in the chess domain.

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Temperature

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Best Expert

std: 0.1

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Temperature

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Best Expert

std: 0.2

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Temperature

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Best Expert

std: 0.4

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Temperature

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Best Expert

std: 0.6

5 Related Work

Chess and AI. Chess has been motivating AI research since the field began. In 1950, before anyone had used the term 'artificial intelligence', automated chess were explored by both Claude Shannon [26] and Alan Turing [32]. Arguably, this history goes back even further: the famed 'mechanical turk' of the 18th century was a fraudulently automated chess player. These centuries of mechanical ambitions were finally realized in 1997, when world champion Garry Kasparov was defeated by IBM's Deep Blue [3]. Since then, chess program developers have drawn on neural approaches, with the RL-based convolutional network AlphaZero [27] far surpassing prior world champion engines such as Stockfish [25].Our chess model testbed is inspired by a number of existing approaches, including other models trained on lichess data [18], and other transformer-based sequential chess agents [23, 5].

Diversity beats Strength. Another historical thread in AI research is the strength of diverse learners. Long since the development of ensemble methods that exploit learner diversity-including bagging [1], boosting [6], and model averaging [19]-researchers have continued to articulate this insight across settings. Similar to our chess setting, a diverse team of go playing agents have been proven and empirically shown to outperform solitary agents [9] and homogeneous teams [28], even when the alternative models individually outperform the diverse team members [17]. We draw a connection to this deep literature through our theory, which shows that imitation learning objective and then performing low-temperature sampling subtly implies the same principle of majority voting. Teacher diversity has also been explored in the machine learning literature. One related method is ensemble distillation [16], in which a model is trained with an additional objective to match a variety of weaker teacher models. Closer to our setting, ensemble self-training approaches [24] train a learner directly on the labels produced by varied teachers. Large language models supervised by smaller or less trained models are said to exhibit 'weak to strong generalization' [2]. Overall, evidence continues to accrue that the general phenomenon we address is pervasive: that is, models can substantially improve over the experts that generate their training data.

Offline Reinforcement Learning. Our work also draws connections to the Offline Reinforcement Learning [14] setting, where one attempts to learn a new policy π that improves upon a fixed dataset generated by some behavior policy π β . However, our setting of imitation learning differs substantially from this literature, as we do not explicitly train our model on a RL objective that attempts to improve upon the dataset. Importantly, such an objective oftentimes introduces training instabilities [15] and also assumes reward labels. We defer a more extended discussion of related work to Appendix D.

6 Discussion and Future Work

This paper introduces the concept of transcendence. Our theoretical analysis shows that lowtemperature sampling is key to achieving transcendence by denoising expert biases and consolidating diverse knowledge. We validate our findings empirically by training several chess models which, under low-temperature sampling, surpass the performance of the players who produced their training data, as well as further experiments in natural language question-answering and toy Gaussian models. We additionally highlight the necessity of dataset diversity for transcendence, emphasizing the role of varied expert perspectives.

Limitations. While our work provides a strong foundation for understanding and achieving transcendence in generative models, several avenues for future research remain. Future work may investigate transcendence and its causes in domains and contexts beyond chess, such as natural language processing, computer vision, and text-to-video, to understand the generalizability of our findings. Additionally, our theoretical framework assumes that game conditions at test time match those seen during training; in order to extend our findings to cases of composition or reasoning, we must forego this assumption.

Future Work. Future work could also explore the practical implementations of transcendence, and ethical considerations in the broader context of deployed generative models. Ultimately, our findings lay the groundwork for leveraging generative models to not only match but exceed human expertise across diverse applications, pushing the theoretical boundaries of what generative models can achieve.

Broader Impact. The possibility of 'superintelligent' AGI has recently fueled many speculative hopes and fears. It is therefore possible that our work will be cited by concerned communities as evidence of a threat, but we would highlight that the denoising effect addressed in this paper does not offer any evidence for a model being able to produce novel solutions that a human expert would be incapable of devising. In particular, we do not present evidence that low temperature sampling leads to novel abstract reasoning, but just denoising of errors.

References

L. Breiman. Bagging predictors. Machine Learning , 24:123-140, 1996. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:47328136 .

C. Burns, P. Izmailov, J. H. Kirchner, B. Baker, L. Gao, L. Aschenbrenner, Y. Chen, A. Ecoffet, M. Joglekar, J. Leike, et al. Weak-to-strong generalization: Eliciting strong capabilities with weak supervision. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.09390 , 2023.

M. Campbell, A. J. Hoane, and F.-h. Hsu. Deep Blue. Artificial Intelligence , 134(1):57-83, Jan. 2002. ISSN 0004-3702. doi: 10.1016/S0004-3702(01)00129-1.

L. Chen, K. Lu, A. Rajeswaran, K. Lee, A. Grover, M. Laskin, P. Abbeel, A. Srinivas, and I. Mordatch. Decision transformer: Reinforcement learning via sequence modeling, 2021.

X. Feng, Y. Luo, Z. Wang, H. Tang, M. Yang, K. Shao, D. Mguni, Y. Du, and J. Wang. ChessGPT: Bridging Policy Learning and Language Modeling. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 36:7216-7262, Dec. 2023.

Y. Freund and R. E. Schapire. A short introduction to boosting, 1999. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:9621074 .

M. E. Glickman. Example of the glicko-2 system. Boston University , 28, 2012.

M. Janner, Q. Li, and S. Levine. Offline reinforcement learning as one big sequence modeling problem, 2021.

A. Jiang, L. Soriano Marcolino, A. D. Procaccia, T. Sandholm, N. Shah, and M. Tambe. Diverse randomized agents vote to win. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 27, 2014.

S. M. Kakade and J. Langford. Approximately optimal approximate reinforcement learning. In International Conference on Machine Learning , 2002. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:31442909 .

A. Karpathy. NanoGPT. https://github.com/karpathy/nanoGPT , 2022.

A. Karvonen. Emergent world models and latent variable estimation in chess-playing language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.15498 , 2024.

D. P. Kingma and J. Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980 , 2014.

S. Levine, A. Kumar, G. Tucker, and J. Fu. Offline reinforcement learning: Tutorial, review, and perspectives on open problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.01643 , 2020.

J. Li, E. Zhang, M. Yin, Q. Bai, Y .-X. Wang, and W. Y . Wang. Offline reinforcement learning with closed-form policy improvement operators. In International Conference on Machine Learning , pages 20485-20528. PMLR, 2023.

T. Lin, L. Kong, S. U. Stich, and M. Jaggi. Ensemble distillation for robust model fusion in federated learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 33:2351-2363, 2020.

L. S. Marcolino, A. X. Jiang, and M. Tambe. Multi-agent team formation: Diversity beats strength? In IJCAI , volume 13, 2013.

R. McIlroy-Young, S. Sen, J. Kleinberg, and A. Anderson. Aligning Superhuman AI with Human Behavior: Chess as a Model System. In Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining , pages 1677-1687, Aug. 2020. doi: 10.1145/3394486.3403219.

H. B. McMahan, E. Moore, D. Ramage, S. Hampson, and B. A. y Arcas. Communication-efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data, 2023.

V. Mnih, K. Kavukcuoglu, D. Silver, A. A. Rusu, J. Veness, M. G. Bellemare, A. Graves, M. Riedmiller, A. K. Fidjeland, G. Ostrovski, et al. Human-level control through deep reinforcement learning. nature , 518(7540):529-533, 2015.

R. Munos, T. Stepleton, A. Harutyunyan, and M. Bellemare. Safe and efficient off-policy reinforcement learning. Advances in neural information processing systems , 29, 2016.

Y. Nasu. Efficiently Updatable Neural-Network-based Evaluation Functions for Computer Shogi, 2018.

D. Noever, M. Ciolino, and J. Kalin. The Chess Transformer: Mastering Play using Generative Language Models, Sept. 2020.

A. Odonnat, V. Feofanov, and I. Redko. Leveraging ensemble diversity for robust self-training in the presence of sample selection bias, 2024.

Pete. AlphaZero Crushes Stockfish In New 1,000-Game Match. https://www.chess.com/news/view/updated-alphazero-crushes-stockfish-in-new-1-000game-match, Dec. 2018.

C. E. Shannon. XXII. Programming a computer for playing chess. The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science , 41(314):256-275, Mar. 1950. ISSN 1941-5982, 1941-5990. doi: 10.1080/14786445008521796.

D. Silver, T. Hubert, J. Schrittwieser, I. Antonoglou, M. Lai, A. Guez, M. Lanctot, L. Sifre, D. Kumaran, T. Graepel, T. Lillicrap, K. Simonyan, and D. Hassabis. Mastering Chess and Shogi by Self-Play with a General Reinforcement Learning Algorithm, Dec. 2017.

L. Soriano Marcolino, H. Xu, A. Xin Jiang, M. Tambe, and E. Bowring. Give a Hard Problem to a Diverse Team: Exploring Large Action Spaces. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , 28(1), June 2014. ISSN 2374-3468, 2159-5399. doi: 10.1609/aaai.v28i1.8880.

The Stockfish developers (see AUTHORS file). Stockfish, 2024. URL https: //stockfishchess.org/ .

S. Toshniwal, S. Wiseman, K. Livescu, and K. Gimpel. Chess as a Testbed for Language Model State Tracking. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume 36, pages 11385-11393, June 2022. doi: 10.1609/aaai.v36i10.21390.

A. Touati, A. Zhang, J. Pineau, and P. Vincent. Stable policy optimization via off-policy divergence regularization. In Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence , pages 1328-1337. PMLR, 2020.

A.Turing. Chess (1953). In B. J. Copeland, editor, TheEssential Turing , page 0. Oxford University Press, Sept. 2004. ISBN 978-0-19-825079-1. doi: 10.1093/oso/9780198250791.003.0023.

A. N. Uma, T. Fornaciari, D. Hovy, S. Paun, B. Plank, and M. Poesio. Learning from disagreement: A survey. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research , 72:1385-1470, 2021.

L. Van der Maaten and G. Hinton. Visualizing data using t-sne. Journal of machine learning research , 9(11), 2008.

A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, Ł. Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems , 30, 2017.

Q. Xie, M.-T. Luong, E. Hovy, and Q. V. Le. Self-training with noisy student improves imagenet classification. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 10687-10698, 2020.

S. Zhang, S. Roller, N. Goyal, M. Artetxe, M. Chen, S. Chen, C. Dewan, M. Diab, X. Li, X. V. Lin, et al. Opt: Open pre-trained transformer language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.01068 , 2022.

A Proofs

Here we prove Proposition 1, where transcendence cannot occur by purely using imitation learning in our setting where all experts are sampled uniformly across the input distribution.

Proof. From linearity of the expectation

We now give the proof of Proposition 2 that if the arg-max prediction is better than the best expert, then transcendence is possible with low-temperature sampling.

Proof. Observe that for all q , it holds that lim τ → 0 softmax( q ; τ )=argmax( q ) . Therefore, for all x

and so,

Therefore, the required immediately follows.

To prove Proposition 3.3, we directly use the result in Proposition 2.

Proof. Notice that for this expert, argmax( f ( ·| x )) = f ∗ ( y | x ) , which achieves higher reward compared to f . Therefore, Theorem 2 implies that we achieve transcendence in the setting where all the data is generated by a single expert f .

Next, we give the proof for that low-temperature sampling can be thought of as performing majority vote [1, 6] between the experts:

Proposition 5. Let z =[ z 1 ,z 2 ,...,z n ] be a vector and τ > 0 be a temperature parameter. Define the softmax function as

Then, as τ → 0 + , the limit of the softmax function is given by

where z max =max 1 ≤ j ≤ n z j , and k is the number of indices i such that z i = z max .

Proof. Let z max =max 1 ≤ j ≤ n z j , and define the set

with cardinality k = | S | .

For each i , let

Then the softmax function becomes

since e z max /τ cancels out in the numerator and denominator.

Weanalyze the behavior of the terms as τ → 0 + .

For i ∈ S we have ∆ i =0 and so:

For i / ∈ S we have ∆ i < 0 so

Therefore, the denominator simplifies to

Similarly, the numerator becomes

Thus, for each i ,

This concludes the proof.

Finally, we give the proof of Proposition 4, or the statement that transcendence can occur from multiple experts if the test distribution p test is spread across multiple disjoing subsets of X i .

Proof. In this case, observe that for all i

Therefore, we get that for all x

Thus, we get f max = f ∗ , and the required follows from Proposition 2.

B Additional Denoising Visualizations

二

二

Reward Rz(y)

T = 1.0

T = 0.75

T = 0.001

1.0

1.0

1.0

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

皇

Reward Rx(

T = 1.0

T = 0.75

T = 0.001

1.0

1.0

1.0

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

順→順↑→

Reward Rz(y)

T = 1.0

T = 0.75

T = 0.001

1.0

1.0

1.0

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.0

二←

1←

0.0

0.0

C Intuition of low temperature sampling inducing transcendence

To build intuition for the primary mechanism of transcendence that we explore in this paper, we give the following toy progression of distributions in order to clearly illustrate how low-temperature sampling can induce transcendence through majority voting. Here, the middle purple action represent the correct, high-reward output, whilst the left and right actions are low-reward bad outputs. We plot the probability of each output as a label on the x axis.

100

75

50

25

0

60

40

0

100

75

50

自

25

0

0

40

60

100

75

50

25

0

30

40

30

100

75

50

25

0

5

90

5

D Further Related Work

D.1 Label Disagreement

Label disagreement in training data, in particular, can improve models in practice. Xie et al. [36] empirically show that adding random noise to teacher-generated labels can improve a student model. Umaet al. [33] even survey the literature on human interannotator disagreement and find a trend of improvements when models are trained on the full set of disagreeing labels rather than on majority vote labels or only on data where labelers agree. Our theoretical claims build on these findings by making the point that the learner can even improve on these original diverse labelers.

D.2 Offline Reinforcement Learning

Although most Offline Reinforcement Learning algorithms train on an RL objective, perhaps most similar to our work is Decision Transformer [4] and Trajectory Transformer [8]: prior models trained on just the sequence prediction of trajectories. Most notably, Decision Transformer also finds an alternative form of transcendence than the one explored in this paper: by conditioning the trained transformer by the performance of the trajectory, at inference time they can then prompt the model to perform better than the best trajectory seen during training. This remains another promising direction to explore transcendence under.

Interestingly, an analogue to low-temperature sampling also has been noticed and exploited by Reinforcement Learning practitioners in the context of off-policy learning , where a different exploration policy π E is used than the final learned target policy π T . Oftentimes π T will just be set to a greedy version of π E [21], such as choosing π T to take the argmax action of π E , which we note is directly equivalent to setting temperature to 0.

E Training Details

Wegive a full list of the hyperparameters we used for training here. Note that we largely follow the same hyperparameter set as [37], but lower the batch size to 125 K as we found training to still be stable ta this level. We also release our code openly to support further research into transcendence, which was built off the wonderful work done by Karvonen [12] and Karpathy [11].

Table 2: Hyperparameters for our ChessFormer model.

F Compute Resources

Wetrain all of our models on the Nvidia H100 80GB GPU. To train one of our models takes around 6 to 12 hours.

G Full t-SNE

We visualize the full t-SNE here, coloring by the reward of the game. We see that the model has learned some representation of the reward, with high absolute reward states being more likely to be near each other in the latent space. This also points towards evidence that the model has learned some sort equivariant representation of the player identity, as the region of symmetric high reward states indicate. Note that reward is not directly given to the model during training.

t-SNE of Latent Board States Colored by Reward

1.00

60

0.875

40

-0.75

20

0.625

Reward

0

0.50

-20

0.375

0.25

-40

0.125

-60

0.00

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

Wevisualize the same t-SNE, but this time coloring by game length rather than reward. We see that games with high reward tend to be longer, which makes logical sense as the result of the game will tend to be clearer as the game proogresses.

t-SNE of Latent Board States Colored by Game Length

180

60

160

40

140

120

20

Length

100

0

Game l

80

-20

60

-40

40

20

-60

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

NeurIPS Paper Checklist

The checklist is designed to encourage best practices for responsible machine learning research, addressing issues of reproducibility, transparency, research ethics, and societal impact. Do not remove the checklist: The papers not including the checklist will be desk rejected. The checklist should follow the references and follow the (optional) supplemental material. The checklist does NOT count towards the page limit.

Please read the checklist guidelines carefully for information on how to answer these questions. For each question in the checklist:

You should answer [Yes] , [No] , or [NA] .

[NA] means either that the question is Not Applicable for that particular paper or the relevant information is Not Available.

Please provide a short (1-2 sentence) justification right after your answer (even for NA).

The checklist answers are an integral part of your paper submission. They are visible to the reviewers, area chairs, senior area chairs, and ethics reviewers. You will be asked to also include it (after eventual revisions) with the final version of your paper, and its final version will be published with the paper.

The reviewers of your paper will be asked to use the checklist as one of the factors in their evaluation. While "[Yes] " is generally preferable to "[No] ", it is perfectly acceptable to answer "[No] " provided a proper justification is given (e.g., "error bars are not reported because it would be too computationally expensive" or "we were unable to find the license for the dataset we used"). In general, answering "[No] " or "[NA] " is not grounds for rejection. While the questions are phrased in a binary way, we acknowledge that the true answer is often more nuanced, so please just use your best judgment and write a justification to elaborate. All supporting evidence can appear either in the main paper or the supplemental material, provided in appendix. If you answer [Yes] to a question, in the justification please point to the section(s) where related material for the question can be found.

IMPORTANT, please:

Delete this instruction block, but keep the section heading 'NeurIPS paper checklist" ,

Keep the checklist subsection headings, questions/answers and guidelines below.

Donot modify the questions and only use the provided macros for your answers .

1. Claims

Question: Do the main claims made in the abstract and introduction accurately reflect the paper's contributions and scope?

Answer: [Yes]

Justification: All claims in the introduction are cross referenced with the rest of the paper.

Guidelines:

The answer NA means that the abstract and introduction do not include the claims made in the paper.

The abstract and/or introduction should clearly state the claims made, including the contributions made in the paper and important assumptions and limitations. A No or NAanswer to this question will not be perceived well by the reviewers.

The claims made should match theoretical and experimental results, and reflect how much the results can be expected to generalize to other settings.

It is fine to include aspirational goals as motivation as long as it is clear that these goals are not attained by the paper.

2. Limitations

Question: Does the paper discuss the limitations of the work performed by the authors?

Answer: [Yes]

Justification: Limitations provided in discussion section

Guidelines:

The answer NA means that the paper has no limitation while the answer No means that the paper has limitations, but those are not discussed in the paper.

The authors are encouraged to create a separate "Limitations" section in their paper.

The paper should point out any strong assumptions and how robust the results are to violations of these assumptions (e.g., independence assumptions, noiseless settings, model well-specification, asymptotic approximations only holding locally). The authors should reflect on how these assumptions might be violated in practice and what the implications would be.

The authors should reflect on the scope of the claims made, e.g., if the approach was only tested on a few datasets or with a few runs. In general, empirical results often depend on implicit assumptions, which should be articulated.

The authors should reflect on the factors that influence the performance of the approach. For example, a facial recognition algorithm may perform poorly when image resolution is low or images are taken in low lighting. Or a speech-to-text system might not be used reliably to provide closed captions for online lectures because it fails to handle technical jargon.

The authors should discuss the computational efficiency of the proposed algorithms and how they scale with dataset size.

If applicable, the authors should discuss possible limitations of their approach to address problems of privacy and fairness.

While the authors might fear that complete honesty about limitations might be used by reviewers as grounds for rejection, a worse outcome might be that reviewers discover limitations that aren't acknowledged in the paper. The authors should use their best judgment and recognize that individual actions in favor of transparency play an important role in developing norms that preserve the integrity of the community. Reviewers will be specifically instructed to not penalize honesty concerning limitations.

3. Theory Assumptions and Proofs

Question: For each theoretical result, does the paper provide the full set of assumptions and a complete (and correct) proof?

Answer: [Yes]

Justification: proof provided in the appendix, assumptions provided in preambles

Guidelines:

The answer NA means that the paper does not include theoretical results.

All the theorems, formulas, and proofs in the paper should be numbered and cross-referenced.

All assumptions should be clearly stated or referenced in the statement of any theorems.

The proofs can either appear in the main paper or the supplemental material, but if they appear in the supplemental material, the authors are encouraged to provide a short proof sketch to provide intuition.

Inversely, any informal proof provided in the core of the paper should be complemented by formal proofs provided in appendix or supplemental material.

Theorems and Lemmas that the proof relies upon should be properly referenced.

4. Experimental Result Reproducibility

Question: Does the paper fully disclose all the information needed to reproduce the main experimental results of the paper to the extent that it affects the main claims and/or conclusions of the paper (regardless of whether the code and data are provided or not)?

Answer: [Yes]

Justification: data sources are given, and open source

Guidelines:

The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.

If the paper includes experiments, a No answer to this question will not be perceived well by the reviewers: Making the paper reproducible is important, regardless of whether the code and data are provided or not.

If the contribution is a dataset and/or model, the authors should describe the steps taken to make their results reproducible or verifiable.

Depending on the contribution, reproducibility can be accomplished in various ways. For example, if the contribution is a novel architecture, describing the architecture fully might suffice, or if the contribution is a specific model and empirical evaluation, it may be necessary to either make it possible for others to replicate the model with the same dataset, or provide access to the model. In general. releasing code and data is often one good way to accomplish this, but reproducibility can also be provided via detailed instructions for how to replicate the results, access to a hosted model (e.g., in the case of a large language model), releasing of a model checkpoint, or other means that are appropriate to the research performed.

While NeurIPS does not require releasing code, the conference does require all submissions to provide some reasonable avenue for reproducibility, which may depend on the nature of the contribution. For example

(a) If the contribution is primarily a new algorithm, the paper should make it clear how to reproduce that algorithm.

(b) If the contribution is primarily a new model architecture, the paper should describe the architecture clearly and fully.

(c) If the contribution is a new model (e.g., a large language model), then there should either be a way to access this model for reproducing the results or a way to reproduce the model (e.g., with an open-source dataset or instructions for how to construct the dataset).

(d) Werecognize that reproducibility may be tricky in some cases, in which case authors are welcome to describe the particular way they provide for reproducibility. In the case of closed-source models, it may be that access to the model is limited in some way (e.g., to registered users), but it should be possible for other researchers to have some path to reproducing or verifying the results.

5. Open access to data and code

Question: Does the paper provide open access to the data and code, with sufficient instructions to faithfully reproduce the main experimental results, as described in supplemental material?

Answer: [Yes]

Justification: We link to our website on the first page, which provides open access to data, code, and extensive documentation.

Guidelines:

The answer NA means that paper does not include experiments requiring code.

Please see the NeurIPS code and data submission guidelines ( https: //nips.cc/public/guides/CodeSubmissionPolicy ) for more details.

Whileweencouragethereleaseofcodeanddata, weunderstandthat this might not be possible, so 'No' is an acceptable answer. Papers cannot be rejected simply for not including code, unless this is central to the contribution (e.g., for a new open-source benchmark).

The instructions should contain the exact command and environment needed to run to reproduce the results. See the NeurIPS code and data submission guidelines ( https://nips.cc/public/guides/CodeSubmissionPolicy ) for more details.

The authors should provide instructions on data access and preparation, including how to access the raw data, preprocessed data, intermediate data, and generated data, etc.

The authors should provide scripts to reproduce all experimental results for the new proposed method and baselines. If only a subset of experiments are reproducible, they should state which ones are omitted from the script and why.

At submission time, to preserve anonymity, the authors should release anonymized versions (if applicable).

Providing as much information as possible in supplemental material (appended to the paper) is recommended, but including URLs to data and code is permitted.

6. Experimental Setting/Details

Question: Does the paper specify all the training and test details (e.g., data splits, hyperparameters, how they were chosen, type of optimizer, etc.) necessary to understand the results?

Answer: [Yes]

Justification: We provide all information for reproducibility in our code, as well as Appendix E Guidelines:

The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.

The experimental setting should be presented in the core of the paper to a level of detail that is necessary to appreciate the results and make sense of them.

The full details can be provided either with the code, in appendix, or as supplemental material.

7. Experiment Statistical Significance

Question: Does the paper report error bars suitably and correctly defined or other appropriate information about the statistical significance of the experiments?

Answer: [Yes]

Justification: plots that demonstrate transcendence include standard deviations.

Guidelines:

The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.

The authors should answer "Yes" if the results are accompanied by error bars, confidence intervals, or statistical significance tests, at least for the experiments that support the main claims of the paper.

The factors of variability that the error bars are capturing should be clearly stated (for example, train/test split, initialization, random drawing of some parameter, or overall run with given experimental conditions).

The method for calculating the error bars should be explained (closed form formula, call to a library function, bootstrap, etc.)

The assumptions made should be given (e.g., Normally distributed errors).

It should be clear whether the error bar is the standard deviation or the standard error of the mean.

It is OK to report 1-sigma error bars, but one should state it. The authors should preferably report a 2-sigma error bar than state that they have a 96% CI, if the hypothesis of Normality of errors is not verified.

For asymmetric distributions, the authors should be careful not to show in tables or figures symmetric error bars that would yield results that are out of range (e.g. negative error rates).

If error bars are reported in tables or plots, The authors should explain in the text how they were calculated and reference the corresponding figures or tables in the text.

8. Experiments Compute Resources

Question: For each experiment, does the paper provide sufficient information on the computer resources (type of compute workers, memory, time of execution) needed to reproduce the experiments?

Answer: [Yes]

Justification: We provide this information in Appendix F

Guidelines:

The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.

The paper should indicate the type of compute workers CPU or GPU, internal cluster, or cloud provider, including relevant memory and storage.

The paper should provide the amount of compute required for each of the individual experimental runs as well as estimate the total compute.

The paper should disclose whether the full research project required more compute than the experiments reported in the paper (e.g., preliminary or failed experiments that didn't make it into the paper).

9. Code Of Ethics

Question: Does the research conducted in the paper conform, in every respect, with the NeurIPS Code of Ethics https://neurips.cc/public/EthicsGuidelines ?

Answer: [Yes]

Justification: the authors have read the code of ethics

Guidelines:

The answer NA means that the authors have not reviewed the NeurIPS Code of Ethics.

If the authors answer No, they should explain the special circumstances that require a deviation from the Code of Ethics.

The authors should make sure to preserve anonymity (e.g., if there is a special consideration due to laws or regulations in their jurisdiction).

10. Broader Impacts

Question: Does the paper discuss both potential positive societal impacts and negative societal impacts of the work performed?

Answer: [Yes]

Justification: Provided in discussion section.

Guidelines:

The answer NA means that there is no societal impact of the work performed.

If the authors answer NA or No, they should explain why their work has no societal impact or why the paper does not address societal impact.

Examples of negative societal impacts include potential malicious or unintended uses (e.g., disinformation, generating fake profiles, surveillance), fairness considerations (e.g., deployment of technologies that could make decisions that unfairly impact specific groups), privacy considerations, and security considerations.

The conference expects that many papers will be foundational research and not tied to particular applications, let alone deployments. However, if there is a direct path to any negative applications, the authors should point it out. For example, it is legitimate to point out that an improvement in the quality of generative models could be used to generate deepfakes for disinformation. On the other hand, it is not needed to point out that a generic algorithm for optimizing neural networks could enable people to train models that generate Deepfakes faster.

The authors should consider possible harms that could arise when the technology is being used as intended and functioning correctly, harms that could arise when the technology is being used as intended but gives incorrect results, and harms following from (intentional or unintentional) misuse of the technology.

If there are negative societal impacts, the authors could also discuss possible mitigation strategies (e.g., gated release of models, providing defenses in addition to attacks, mechanisms for monitoring misuse, mechanisms to monitor how a system learns from feedback over time, improving the efficiency and accessibility of ML).

11. Safeguards

Question: Does the paper describe safeguards that have been put in place for responsible release of data or models that have a high risk for misuse (e.g., pretrained language models, image generators, or scraped datasets)?

Answer: [NA]

Justification: the models in question are domain specific chess agents

Guidelines:

The answer NA means that the paper poses no such risks.

Released models that have a high risk for misuse or dual-use should be released with necessary safeguards to allow for controlled use of the model, for example by requiring that users adhere to usage guidelines or restrictions to access the model or implementing safety filters.

Datasets that have been scraped from the Internet could pose safety risks. The authors should describe how they avoided releasing unsafe images.

Werecognize that providing effective safeguards is challenging, and many papers do not require this, but we encourage authors to take this into account and make a best faith effort.

12. Licenses for existing assets

Question: Are the creators or original owners of assets (e.g., code, data, models), used in the paper, properly credited and are the license and terms of use explicitly mentioned and properly respected?

Answer: [Yes]

Justification: We cite all original sources of data (lichess) and write all of our training code from scratch.

Guidelines

The answer NA means that the paper does not use existing assets.

The authors should cite the original paper that produced the code package or dataset.

Theauthors should state which version of the asset is used and, if possible, include a URL.

The name of the license (e.g., CC-BY 4.0) should be included for each asset.

For scraped data from a particular source (e.g., website), the copyright and terms of service of that source should be provided.

If assets are released, the license, copyright information, and terms of use in the package should be provided. For popular datasets, paperswithcode.com/datasets has curated licenses for some datasets. Their licensing guide can help determine the license of a dataset.

For existing datasets that are re-packaged, both the original license and the license of the derived asset (if it has changed) should be provided.

If this information is not available online, the authors are encouraged to reach out to the asset's creators.

13. NewAssets

Question: Are new assets introduced in the paper well documented and is the documentation provided alongside the assets?

Answer: [Yes]

Justification: We provide code and release the dataset that we train our models on, as well as the figure generation code. We give extensive documentation on both, and take pride in the reproducibility of our work.

Guidelines:

The answer NA means that the paper does not release new assets.

Researchers should communicate the details of the dataset/code/model as part of their submissions via structured templates. This includes details about training, license, limitations, etc.

The paper should discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose asset is used.

At submission time, remember to anonymize your assets (if applicable). You can either create an anonymized URL or include an anonymized zip file.

14. Crowdsourcing and Research with Human Subjects

Question: For crowdsourcing experiments and research with human subjects, does the paper include the full text of instructions given to participants and screenshots, if applicable, as well as details about compensation (if any)?

Answer: [NA]

Justification: No human subjects, data used is from public sources without individual identities.

Guidelines:

The answer NA means that the paper does not involve crowdsourcing nor research with human subjects.

Including this information in the supplemental material is fine, but if the main contribution of the paper involves human subjects, then as much detail as possible should be included in the main paper.

AccordingtotheNeurIPSCodeofEthics,workersinvolvedindatacollection, curation, or other labor should be paid at least the minimum wage in the country of the data collector.

15. Institutional Review Board (IRB) Approvals or Equivalent for Research with Human Subjects

Question: Does the paper describe potential risks incurred by study participants, whether such risks were disclosed to the subjects, and whether Institutional Review Board (IRB) approvals (or an equivalent approval/review based on the requirements of your country or institution) were obtained?

Answer: [NA]

Guidelines:

The answer NA means that the paper does not involve crowdsourcing nor research with human subjects.

Depending on the country in which research is conducted, IRB approval (or equivalent) may be required for any human subjects research. If you obtained IRB approval, you should clearly state this in the paper.

We recognize that the procedures for this may vary significantly between institutions and locations, and we expect authors to adhere to the NeurIPS Code of Ethics and the guidelines for their institution.

For initial submissions, do not include any information that would break anonymity (if applicable), such as the institution conducting the review.

Peer reviews:
{"IS_META_REVIEW": false, "comments": "SUMMARY:\n1. Definition of Transcendence: The paper defines transcendence as a phenomenon where a generative model, trained on data from human experts, achieves capabilities that surpass the abilities of those experts.\n\n2. Theoretical Framework: The authors provide a theoretical analysis of the conditions under which transcendence can occur. They prove that low-temperature sampling is necessary for transcendence in their setting.\n\n3. Chess as a Testbed: The researchers use chess as a domain to empirically test their theories, training transformer models (called \"ChessFormers\") on datasets of human chess games with various skill levels.\n\n4. Main Findings:\n   - Low-temperature sampling enables transcendence: Models trained on games from players rated up to 1000 and 1300 were able to achieve ratings above 1500 when using low-temperature sampling.\n   - Dataset diversity is crucial: The model trained on games up to 1500 rating did not achieve transcendence, likely due to less diversity in the dataset.\n   - Denoising effect: Low-temperature sampling helps by shifting probability mass towards better moves in key situations.\n\n5. Theoretical Insights: The paper draws connections between their findings and existing literature on model ensembling and the \"wisdom of the crowd\" effect.\n\nSTRENGTHS:\nThe paper studies an interesting questions theoretically and shows the insights relate on a nicely accessible empirical problem namely chess. One strength of the paper are also the simple theoretical arguments presented, which seem relevant in non-trivial settings. Paper is quite well written (one could improve here quite a bit) and results nicely presented, although the paper seems quite rushed.\n\nWEAKNESSES:\nI think the theoretical section could be improved by integrating the proofs, when given the extra page if accepted. Also I wouldn’t call the theoretical insights „theorems“ but rather propositions. \nI think the paper would greatly benefit from a toy model which allows to study when transcendence is possible, theoretically and practically. I think the major weakness of the paper is the missing understanding when transcendence can occur and when it can’t.\n\nDidn’t have much time to review this paper unfortunately, will study it in more detail in the next weeks and consider raising my score, after the authors feedback.\n\nQUESTIONS:\nSee weaknesses\n\nTypo in line 100 we make assume \nTypo in line 123 outputs a correct but noisy prediction(s).\nReference in line 201 - reference to the current section \nTypo in line 237: to the right?\nFigure 4, improve legend and generally readability/visualizations of the Figure, E[F] two times, not clear what the difference is \nTypo in line 249 This is matches \nTypo in line 265 We, we\nReference Theorem line 142\n\nLIMITATIONS:\nLooks fine, would be great to  discuss future research directions.", "TITLE": "Official Review", "RECOMMENDATION": 7, "REVIEWER_CONFIDENCE": 3, "SOUNDNESS_CORRECTNESS": 3, "DATE": "2024-07-06"}

{"IS_META_REVIEW": false, "comments": "SUMMARY:\nIn this work the authors focus on formalizing and investigating the concept of *trascendence*, i.e. the capacity of a model to outperform the experts it was trained on. To do so, they train transformer-based models for chess limiting experts used for training to a certain maximal ranking. In this setup they postulate and prove a connection of trascendence to low temperature scaling and validate it empirically. Then they continue their analysis by showing that the gain in performance due to low temperature scaling is to be attributed to large improvements over a relatively small subset of states. Finally, a link between trascendence and dataset diversity is drawn.\n\nSTRENGTHS:\n- The topic of the work is relevant, and the paper provides interesting insights with solid empirical validation.\n- The choice of chess as an experimental setting is very smart for this study. This setup also allows the authors to perform targeted ablations and validate specific claims.\n- The experiments section is clear, with convincing results, and it is easy for the reader to find and understand the evidence that backs up specific claims in the paper. \n- The paper is well-structured and well-written.\n\nWEAKNESSES:\n- Chess is the only experimental setting considered. While the experiments are thorough in this setting, validating the claims in the paper on multiple and diverse experimental settings would be stronger evidence. \n- Theorem 2, basically easily follows from the assumption that $\\hat{f}_{max}$  is better than the best expert. Since it is so central, can the authors elaborate more on the assumption that $\\hat{f} _{max}$  is better than the best expert? Is it always realistic to assume? \n- The connection between majority voting and low temperature sampling (line 116) should be more formally proved, rather than left to intuition. One could substitute the expression for $\\hat{f} =\\frac{1}{k} \\sum_{ i=1}^k f_i$ in $\\text{softmax}(\\hat{f}(\\cdot|x); \\tau)$ and show that for low $\\tau$ (e.g. taking the $\\lim _{\\tau \\rightarrow 0}$) it results in majority voting. In addition, I am not sure how much this connection is precise. In fact, looking at the Appendix C, doing majority voting of the single experts would not lead to the same outcome as low temperature sampling. It seems more precise to say that low temperature sampling results in a sharp (i.e. low-entropy) distribution with its peak corresponding to the action that is put more mass on by the consensus of experts.\n- To my understanding, in Section 3.4 the mathematical definition of the i-th expert, that performs well on the subset $\\mathcal{X}_i$, should rather be $f_i(y|x) = \\biggl( \\frac{\\delta(y \\in Y^\\star_x) \\delta(x \\in \\mathcal{X}_i)} {|Y^\\star_x|} + \\frac{\\delta(x \\notin \\mathcal{X}_i)} {|\\mathcal{Y}|} \\biggr)$.  Am I missing something?\n- In key parts of the work there are typos/inaccuracies (see above and Questions section), which hamper the clarity of the work and confuse the reader.\n\nQUESTIONS:\n- In Eq.4 there appears to be a typo, since the two terms subtracted on the right-hand-side are exactly the same. In my understanding it should be $y \\sim f(.|x)$ in the second expectation.\n- In line 237 it seems that \"left\" should be replaced with \"right\".\n\nLIMITATIONS:\nThe authors are throughout the paper clear in the assumptions that define the scope of their claims, hence implicitly outlining some limitations of the study. Limitations are also explicitly addressed in the last section.", "TITLE": "Official Review", "RECOMMENDATION": 7, "REVIEWER_CONFIDENCE": 4, "SOUNDNESS_CORRECTNESS": 3, "DATE": "2024-07-11"}

{"IS_META_REVIEW": false, "comments": "SUMMARY:\nThe paper explores the phenomenon where generative models, trained to mimic human behavior, can surpass the performance of the experts generating the training data. The study focuses on autoregressive transformer models trained on chess game transcripts, demonstrating that these models can outperform the best human players in the dataset. The key to this transcendence is identified as low-temperature sampling, which effectively denoises human errors and biases through a majority-voting mechanism. The paper provides theoretical proof and empirical evidence supporting this phenomenon and discusses the necessity of dataset diversity for achieving transcendence.\n\nSTRENGTHS:\nSome Strengths:\n1. Novel Concept: The paper introduces and formalizes the concept of transcendence in generative models, providing a new perspective on model performance.\n2. Theoretical Foundation: The authors offer rigorous theoretical proofs that support their claims, grounding the concept of transcendence in solid mathematical principles.\n3. Empirical Validation: The study includes extensive experiments with chess models, demonstrating the practical applicability of their theoretical findings.\n4. Comprehensive Analysis: The paper not only shows that transcendence is possible but also delves into the mechanisms (low-temperature sampling) and conditions (dataset diversity) required to achieve it.\n\nWEAKNESSES:\nHere are some weaknesses:\n1. Limited Scope: The empirical validation is confined to chess, a well-defined and constrained domain. It remains to be seen if transcendence can be generalized to other, more complex tasks.\n2. Assumptions: The theoretical framework relies on several simplifying assumptions, such as uniform sampling of experts and the nature of reward functions, which may not hold in real-world scenarios.\n3. Practical Implications: While the concept of transcendence is theoretically and experimentally validated, the practical implications and real-world applications of this phenomenon are not thoroughly explored.\n4. Computational Resources: The training of large transformer models, particularly with extensive datasets and multiple temperature settings, requires significant computational resources, potentially limiting reproducibility for researchers with fewer resources.\n\nQUESTIONS:\n1. How do the authors plan to test the concept of transcendence in domains beyond chess, particularly in more complex and less structured tasks?\n2. What are the potential impacts of relaxing some of the theoretical assumptions made in this study? For example, how would a non-uniform sampling of experts affect the results?\n3. What ethical implications might arise from models that can transcend their training data, particularly in sensitive domains like healthcare or finance?\n4. How can dataset diversity be ensured or measured effectively in other domains to facilitate transcendence?\n5. Can the authors provide specific examples or case studies where transcendence could lead to significant real-world benefits?\n\nLIMITATIONS:\n1. Domain Specificity: The study is currently limited to chess, and its applicability to other domains is speculative at this point. Further research is needed to confirm the generalizability of the findings.\n2. Simplifying Assumptions: The theoretical results are based on several simplifying assumptions that may not hold in practice. Future work should aim to relax these assumptions and test the robustness of the findings.\n3. Resource Intensity: The models and experiments require substantial computational resources, which may not be accessible to all researchers, potentially hindering reproducibility and further investigation.\n4. Ethical and Practical Implications: The paper briefly touches on the broader impact but does not delve deeply into the ethical and practical implications of deploying transcendent models in real-world applications.\n5. Future Work: While the paper lays a strong theoretical foundation, it leaves many avenues for future research, including exploring other domains, addressing ethical concerns, and developing practical applications.", "TITLE": "Official Review", "RECOMMENDATION": 6, "REVIEWER_CONFIDENCE": 4, "SOUNDNESS_CORRECTNESS": 3, "DATE": "2024-07-12"}