arXiv:2609.30328v1 Announce Type: new
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.
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.
This article has been indexed from cs.AI updates on arXiv.org
Read the original article: