Frozen Judges, Moving Agents: Version-Dependent LLM-Judge Error and the Limits of Judge-Assisted Agent Evaluation

Abstract: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 agent-task 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 improvements that execution-based intervals cannot establish, despite rank correlations of 0.71-0.79. In tau-bench, one judge confidently 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 reference outcome, while a task-solvability prediction from AgentRewardBench reverses sign in SWE-bench. Transporting old-version calibration raises mean absolute comparison error on SWE-bench from 3.8 to 19.5 percentage points; 24.6% of ratio-bootstrap draws are undefined near the correction boundary. A tuned paired audit narrows a classical interval by only about 5% at 80 labeled tasks. A randomized three-arm test does not support the predicted increase in false acceptance from showing the agent's final report (all three Holm-adjusted p-values = 1.0). These results favor explicit reference standards and paired audits of current outputs over judge-only release decisions or transported old-version calibration.

Machine Learning (cs.LG)

arXiv:2609.34198 [cs.LG]

(or arXiv:2609.34198v1 [cs.LG] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.34198 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

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.