资讯

When Is a Multi-Agent Code Judge Actually Grounded? Two Label-Free Measurements, and a Judge That Declines to Guess

📅 2026-09-28 ⏱️ 约 6 分钟阅读 ✍️ AI导航编辑部 🔗 arxiv.org
When Is a Multi-Agent Code Judge Actually Grounded? Two Label-Free Measurements, and a Judge That Declines to Guess
📝 内容摘要

Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence [Submitted on 23 Sep 2026] Title:When Is a Multi-Agent Code Judge Actua

📌 核心要点

  • Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence
  • [Submitted on 23 Sep 2026]
  • Title:When Is a Multi-Agent Code Judge Actually Grounded

Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence

[Submitted on 23 Sep 2026]

Title:When Is a Multi-Agent Code Judge Actually Grounded? Two Label-Free Measurements, and a Judge That Declines to Guess

View PDF HTML (experimental)Abstract:When one language model judges whether another's code is correct, it does not report the absence of evidence. It returns a confident verdict with reasoning attached, indistinguishable from a verdict it had grounds for. Multi-agent verification, which decomposes a judgment into checkable claims and verifies each against evidence, is a promising response and works well when the evidence is a set of retrieved documents.

We argue such methods require two things of their evidence: it must be independent of the answer under review, and it must differ between the two candidates being compared. The second condition holds automatically with retrieved documents and stops holding in code judging.

Running MARCH, a published framework unmodified over 80 condition-by-cell measurements on two code judging benchmarks, we find it declares both solutions equally good on 78 to 95% of comparisons, reaching 4.4% accuracy where the same model asked directly reaches 43.7%. Neither easier problems nor a larger judge changes this. Two measurements taken from the pipeline's own logs explain it without needing labels.

Gating on one of them, the pipeline declines the comparisons it cannot make and raises its accuracy from 20.7 to 36.9% while still answering half of all comparisons. The contribution is not a more accurate judge, but a label-free way to tell when a judge has no basis for its answer.

Current browse context:

cs.AI

References & Citations

Loading...

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)

Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)

Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)

scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)

CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)

DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)

Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)

Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)

ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)

Demos

Recommenders and Search Tools

Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)

CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

来源arxiv.org· 本文为编辑整理,仅供参考