待翻译：trajectory-judge: What Outcome-Only LLM Judges Miss on Agent Trajectories
AI 服务暂时不可用，以下为来源摘要，待恢复后补全翻译：arXiv:2609.00038v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Outcome-only evaluation is the production default for LLM agents: show a judge the request and the final reply and ask whether it was handled well. The metric is structurally blind to an agent that reaches the right answer the wrong way. We measure that blind spot where ground truth is known by construction: a deterministic tool-using support-desk environment, a scripted oracle policy that always solves it, and a fault injector that breaks exactly one thing at a known step, stratifying faults by whether the customer-visible outcome survived (silent) or not (loud). Five judges (programmatic rules, outcome-only, step-rubric at two model sizes, and a self-consistency ensemble) are scored on detection, step localisation, fault typing, calibration, and cost over 400 trajectories. The outcome-only judge catches 84% of loud faults but 45% of silent ones while flagging 33% of correct trajectories; a step-rubric judge reaches 77% silent recall with zero false alarms at 3x the cost. No judge reads the final reply: an invented promise appended to an otherwise perfect trajectory evades the rules entirely and the step judge 82% of the time, and self-consistency triples cost while improving nothing. We argue that judge evaluations must stratify recall by outcome survival, and release the environment, the injector, all raw verdicts, and an analysis pipeline that rebuilds every number offline.
AI 服务暂时不可用，以下为来源正文，待恢复后补全翻译。
--> [Submitted on 29 Aug 2026] Title:trajectory-judge: What Outcome-Only LLM Judges Miss on Agent Trajectories View a PDF of the paper titled trajectory-judge: What Outcome-Only LLM Judges Miss on Agent Trajectories, by Hadi Mohammadi View PDF HTML (experimental) Abstract:Outcome-only evaluation is the production default for LLM agents: show a judge the request and the final reply and ask whether it was handled well. The metric is structurally blind to an agent that reaches the right answer the wrong way. We measure that blind spot where ground truth is known by construction: a deterministic tool-using support-desk environment, a scripted oracle policy that always solves it, and a fault injector that breaks exactly one thing at a known step, stratifying faults by whether the customer-visible outcome survived (silent) or not (loud). Five judges (programmatic rules, outcome-only, step-rubric at two model sizes, and a self-consistency ensemble) are scored on detection, step localisation, fault typing, calibration, and cost over 400 trajectories. The outcome-only judge catches 84% of loud faults but 45% of silent ones while flagging 33% of correct trajectories; a step-rubric judge reaches 77% silent recall with zero false alarms at 3x the cost. No judge reads the final reply: an invented promise appended to an otherwise perfect trajectory evades the rules entirely and the step judge 82% of the time, and self-consistency triples cost while improving nothing. We argue that judge evaluations must stratify recall by outcome survival, and release the environment, the injector, all raw verdicts, and an analysis pipeline that rebuilds every number offline. Comments: 16 pages (8-page main text). Under review at a NeurIPS 2026 workshop. Code, data, and raw verdicts: this https URL Subjects: Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Software Engineering (cs.SE) Cite as: arXiv:2609.00038 [cs.CL] (or arXiv:2609.00038v1 [cs.CL] for this version) https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.00038 arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration) Submission history From: Hadi Mohammadi [view email] [v1] Sat, 29 Aug 2026 10:14:05 UTC (72 KB) Full-text links: Access Paper: View a PDF of the paper titled trajectory-judge: What Outcome-Only LLM Judges Miss on Agent Trajectories, by Hadi Mohammadi View PDF HTML (experimental) TeX Source view license Current browse context: cs.CL new | recent | 2026-09 Change to browse by: cs cs.AI cs.SE References & Citations NASA ADS Google Scholar Semantic Scholar Loading... Data provided by: Bibliographic Tools Bibliographic and Citation Tools Bibliographic Explorer Toggle Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?) Connected Papers Toggle Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?) Litmaps Toggle Litmaps (What is Litmaps?) scite.ai Toggle scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?) Code, Data, Media Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article alphaXiv Toggle alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?) Links to Code Toggle CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?) DagsHub Toggle DagsHub (What is DagsHub?) GotitPub Toggle Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?) Huggingface Toggle Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?) ScienceCast Toggle ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?) Demos Demos Replicate Toggle Replicate (What is Replicate?) Spaces Toggle Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?) Spaces Toggle TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?) Related Papers Recommenders and Search Tools Link to Influence Flower Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?) Core recommender toggle CORE Recommender (What is CORE?) Author Venue Institution Topic About arXivLabs 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. Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)