Large Language Model Critics for Execution-Free Evaluation of Code Changes
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Software engineering coding agents
Abstract (arXiv)
Large language models (LLMs) offer a promising way forward for automating software engineering tasks, such as bug fixes, feature additions, etc., via multi-step LLM-based agentic workflows. However, existing metrics for evaluating such workflows, mainly build status and occasionally log analysis, are too sparse and limited in providing the information needed to assess the quality of changes made. In this work, we designed LLM-based critics to derive well-structured and rigorous intermediate/step-level, execution-free evaluation proxies for repo-level code changes. Importantly, we assume access to the gold test patch for the problem (i.e., reference-aware) to assess both semantics and executability of generated patches. With the gold test patch as a reference, we predict executability of all editing locations with an F1 score of 91.6%, aggregating which, we can predict the build status in 84.8% of the instances in SWE-bench. In particular, such an execution-focused LLM critic outperforms other reference-free and reference-aware LLM critics by 38.9% to 72.5%. Moreover, we demonstrate the usefulness of such a reference-aware framework in comparing patches generated by different agentic workflows. Finally, we open-source the library developed for this project, which allows further usage for either other agentic workflows or other benchmarks. The source code is available at https://github.com/amazon-science/code-agent-eval.
Key facts. Cited by 7 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Software engineering coding agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. First posted on arXiv 28 Jan 2025.
Builds on
0 of 0 references.
No references here yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 2; 2026: 5.
7 papers.
- 2026GUI Agents for Continual Game Generationcited by 16
- 2025Evolutionary Perspectives on the Evaluation of LLM-Based AI Agents: A Comprehensive Surveycited by 12
- 2025Agentic Software Issue Resolution with Large Language Models: A Surveycited by 6
- 2026Steer, Don't Solve: Training Small Critic Models for Large Code Agentscited by 3
- 2026Groundability, Not Scale Alone: When Weak Reviewers Can Audit Strong Coding Agentscited by 1
- 2026Themis: Training Robust Multilingual Code Reward Models for Flexible Multi-Criteria Scoringcited by 0
- 2026Can LLMs Fix It Without Code? Toward Automated Verification of No-Code Bug Fixescited by 0
- 2026Can LLMs Fix It Without Code? Toward Automated Verification of No-Code Bug Fixes8 Oct 2026
- 2026Groundability, Not Scale Alone: When Weak Reviewers Can Audit Strong Coding Agents1 Oct 2026
- 2026Steer, Don't Solve: Training Small Critic Models for Large Code Agents20 Jun 2026
- 2026GUI Agents for Continual Game Generation27 May 2026
- 2026Themis: Training Robust Multilingual Code Reward Models for Flexible Multi-Criteria Scoring1 May 2026
- 2025Agentic Software Issue Resolution with Large Language Models: A Survey24 Dec 2025
- 2025Evolutionary Perspectives on the Evaluation of LLM-Based AI Agents: A Comprehensive Survey6 Jun 2025
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026AdaptEval: A Benchmark for Evaluating Large Language Models on Code Snippet Adaptation
- 2026RepoZero: Can LLMs Generate a Code Repository from Scratch?
- 2025CodeReviewQA: The Code Review Comprehension Assessment for Large Language Models
- 2026Refine After Generation: Toward Correct and Concise Patches in LLM-based Program Repair
- 2025SWE-Compass: Towards Unified Evaluation of Agentic Coding Abilities for Large Language Models
- 2026Rethinking Code Performance Benchmarks for LLMs
- 2025FeedbackEval: A Benchmark for Evaluating Large Language Models in Feedback-Driven Code Repair Tasks
- 2025LLM-Based Detection of Tangled Code Changes for Higher-Quality Method-Level Bug Datasets