arXiv:2611.09291v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: LLM judges increasingly serve as quality gates for code changes that have no test oracle, but a judge prompt must be calibrated for its task and recalibrated as the system it judges evolves, while hand labels for the calibration are resource intensive and go stale. Development workflows emit outcome labels for free (tests pass or fail, changes land or are abandoned), but these labels are noisy. We present AutoRefine, a loop that rewrites a deployable judge's prompt to reproduce outcome labels, with an informed teacher that sees the judge's input plus the outcome, explains each label it keeps, and abstains when the outcome cannot be explained from what the judge sees. On a held-out dataset with an execution oracle, calibration raised chance-corrected agreement (Scott's $\pi$) from 0.36 to 0.60. On a deployed agent's outcome labels, with 25\% flipped at random to introduce noise, the teacher set aside flipped \textsc{fail} labels at more than twice the rate of genuine ones, cutting overall label noise from 25\% to 20\%. Recalibrating that agent's judge using AutoRefine raised its agreement with merge/abandon outcomes on 17 independently held-out diffs from the current workflow ($\pi$ 0.16 to 0.51); on 16 diffs from older workflows, the previous judge stayed ahead, illustrating the need for recalibration as the agent evolves. By abstaining, the teacher not only removes noisy labels but also flags changes whose outcome the judge's input cannot explain, telling a team when a judge needs better inputs rather than a better prompt.
Abstract: LLM judges increasingly serve as quality gates for code changes that have no test oracle, but a judge prompt must be calibrated for its task and recalibrated as the system it judges evolves, while hand labels for the calibration are resource intensive and go stale. Development workflows emit outcome labels for free (tests pass or fail, changes land or are abandoned), but these labels are noisy. We present AutoRefine, a loop that rewrites a deployable judge's prompt to reproduce outcome labels, with an informed teacher that sees the judge's input plus the outcome, explains each label it keeps, and abstains when the outcome cannot be explained from what the judge sees. On a held-out dataset with an execution oracle, calibration raised chance-corrected agreement (Scott's $\pi$) from 0.36 to 0.60. On a deployed agent's outcome labels, with 25\% flipped at random to introduce noise, the teacher set aside flipped \textsc{fail} labels at more than twice the rate of genuine ones, cutting overall label noise from 25\% to 20\%. Recalibrating that agent's judge using AutoRefine raised its agreement with merge/abandon outcomes on 17 independently held-out diffs from the current workflow ($\pi$ 0.16 to 0.51); on 16 diffs from older workflows, the previous judge stayed ahead, illustrating the need for recalibration as the agent evolves. By abstaining, the teacher not only removes noisy labels but also flags changes whose outcome the judge's input cannot explain, telling a team when a judge needs better inputs rather than a better prompt.
This article has been indexed from cs.AI updates on arXiv.org