arXiv (All)
open access
When Is a Multi-Agent Code Judge Actually Grounded? Two Label-Free Measurements, and a Judge That Declines to Guess
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 v
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- AgentFairBench: Do LLM Agents Discriminate When They Act?#973222
- Detect Before You Attribute: Cascade Failure Attribution for Multi-Agent Systems#798285
- Detect Before You Attribute: Cascade Failure Attribution for Multi-Agent Systems#796872
- Beyond Consensus: Downward Bias and Role Asymmetry in Multi-Agent LLM Judges for Subjective Evaluation#799580
- Beyond Consensus: Downward Bias and Role Asymmetry in Multi-Agent LLM Judges for Subjective Evaluation#798157
Record · ID 1104527
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive