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.
Large language model (LLM)-as-a-judge research uses language models to score, compare, and verify AI outputs as scalable alternatives to human evaluation.
Test-time scaling for large language models (LLMs) can involve generating multiple candidate solutions for selection or revising an earlier attempt. To guide selection and revision, we need a verifier that can estimate candidate correctness and provide evidence of failure. In competitive programming, however, official judging systems provide authoritative verdicts under finite submission budgets, without revealing failure explanations or failing inputs. To provide informative feedback without consuming official submissions, we formulate a task in which a model judges and diagnoses a candidate program using only the problem statement and source code, with generated counterexamples serving as checkable evidence. To evaluate this task, we build USACO-JUDGE from the USACO 2026 contests, using accepted and unaccepted programs written by human experts and multiple LLMs. We then train ARBITER, a 35B mixture-of-experts (MoE) agentic verifier, with reinforcement learning in a generic execution sandbox. Training raises counterexample success on incorrect programs from 40.61% to 62.67% and mean binary verdict accuracy on USACO-JUDGE from 71.41% to 87.41%, approaching frontier verification performance. Beyond verification, ARBITER outperforms baselines in both code selection and refinement. In an IOI 2026 case study, ARBITER-guided refinement raises GPT-OSS-120B's expected score above the gold-medal threshold under the official submission limit.
Large language model (LLM) judges are increasingly organized as multi-agent panels under the assumption that exchanging critiques improves judgment quality. We test this assumption for groundedness verification, where a judge must determine whether a claim is supported by the supplied evidence. We evaluate a homogeneous three-agent panel on six public fact-verification and hallucination-detection benchmarks. Relative to a fixed single-agent reference, the panel's system-level accuracy difference ranges from +8.5 to −4.4 percentage points: two datasets show reliable gains, one shows a reliable loss, and three are statistically inconclusive. Because the reference and panel use different model variants, these differences characterize the complete systems rather than isolate a causal debate effect.
Language-model judges compare agent upgrades with their predecessors, but a fixed judge can make version-dependent mistakes. We analyze 35 public coding-agent submissions (20 prespecified version pairs on 250 SWE-bench Verified issues), two customer-service agents (155 tau-bench tasks), and 1,106 expert-labeled AgentRewardBench trajectories. An upstream outage left three judges for the primary SWE-bench analysis (8,743 aligned cells); the fourth is descriptive. All three coding-agent judges and all four tau-bench judges reject task-conditioned error invariance after multiplicity adjustment. On SWE-bench, 32 of 60 judge-by-pair units have a detectable differential comparison component; eight judge-only intervals declare upgrades that execution-based intervals cannot establish, despite rank correlations of 0.71-0.79. In tau-bench, one judge reverses a nine-point reference-reward gap by penalizing a procedural habit the reward ignores. False acceptance of failed coding patches rises with agent capability conditional on task and execution outcome, while a task-solvability prediction reverses sign across domains. A separately fixed post-submission OpenHands follow-up on the same 250 issues (eight configurations, 1,981 three-judge cells) reproduces the capability/false-acceptance association (mean Spearman +0.944, exact p=0.000099) and decreasing Youden contrast (mean -0.937, p=0.000397); this is observational, not a new-task replication. Transporting old-version calibration raises SWE-bench comparison error from 3.8 to 19.5 points, with 24.6% undefined bootstrap ratios. A paired audit saves only 5% in interval width at 80 labeled tasks. A randomized self-report test is negative (three adjusted p-values=1.0). These results favor paired audits of current outputs over judge-only release decisions or transported calibration; independent human patch review remains pending.