Skip to content
AI News HubLIVE
Original source2 min read

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

Summary

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…

SourcearXiv AIAuthor: Salma Roshdy Aly, Hussein Assaf, Ziad Kobti
When Is a Multi-Agent Code Judge Actually Grounded? Two Label-Free Measurements, and a Judge That Declines to Guess
Report an error

The correction channel is not available yet. You can copy the article reference below for later.

Correction instructions
Read article

[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 a PDF of the paper titled When Is a Multi-Agent Code Judge Actually Grounded? Two Label-Free Measurements, and a Judge That Declines to Guess, by Salma Roshdy Aly and 2 other authors

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.

Comments: Accepted at the 21st Women in Machine Learning Workshop (WiML), NeurIPS 2026

Subjects:

Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computation and Language (cs.CL); Software Engineering (cs.SE)

Cite as: arXiv:2609.30328 [cs.AI]

(or arXiv:2609.30328v1 [cs.AI] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.30328

arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

Submission history

From: Salma Roshdy Aly [view email] [v1] Wed, 23 Sep 2026 23:19:59 UTC (8 KB)

Full-text links:

Access Paper:

View a PDF of the paper titled When Is a Multi-Agent Code Judge Actually Grounded? Two Label-Free Measurements, and a Judge That Declines to Guess, by Salma Roshdy Aly and 2 other authors

View PDF

HTML (experimental)

TeX Source

view license

Current browse context:

cs.AI

new | recent | 2026-09

Change to browse by:

cs cs.CL 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?)

Key points and analysis

Article intelligence

EngineersAdvanced

Key points

  • AI generation is temporarily unavailable; this entry was preserved with deterministic fallback metadata.
  • 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 confiden…

Highlights and analysis are generated automatically and may contain errors. Check the original source.