Catching One in Five: LLM-as-Judge Blind Spots in Production Multi-Turn Transaction Agents
Mirrored from arXiv — NLP / Computation & Language for archival readability. Support the source by reading on the original site.
Computer Science > Computation and Language
Title:Catching One in Five: LLM-as-Judge Blind Spots in Production Multi-Turn Transaction Agents
Abstract:LLM-as-judge is the default instrument for evaluating conversational agents, yet its reliability is almost always reported as agreement with human ratings, not recall of real defects. We study a deployed multi-turn food-and-beverage ordering agent and measure how many genuine quality problems its built-in LLM judge catches, using exhaustive human transcript review as ground truth. Across three batches the judge surfaces well under a quarter of human-confirmed systematic problems -- 2 of 9 patterns (22%) in one batch, and its operational gate flagged zero of 100 rounds in a batch where humans confirmed 23 distinct defects and 7 new cross-cutting patterns. Our blind-spot taxonomy shows the failure is structured, not random: the judge catches turn-local issues (a fabricated statistic, a wrong language) but misses cross-turn state issues (confirm-gate lockout, cart hallucination, escalation lockout, stale referents). The mechanism: the scoring rubric exposes only three coarse axes (intent, brand-voice, personalization) and has no category for the behavioural dimensions -- state-tracking, guardrails, recovery -- where most defects cluster. The failure is routing, not perception: 113 of 114 rounds whose raw judge note describes a confirm-gate or cart-state defect are scored "brand voice", and none reach an operational failure -- the gate is wired to hangs and hard assertions, not the rubric -- so the 0% is a routing-and-wiring failure, not blindness. The consequence for prevalence estimation is sharp: when the apparent defect rate is zero the Rogan-Gladen correction degenerates -- no signal can recover the true rate -- while where the gate reports a nonzero rate the same estimator implies a 3-6x undercount under our measured sensitivity. For production multi-turn agents, automated judging is a regression floor, not a substitute for human review.
| Comments: | 13 pages, 1 figure, 5 tables |
| Subjects: | Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI) |
| Cite as: | arXiv:2606.10315 [cs.CL] |
| (or arXiv:2606.10315v1 [cs.CL] for this version) | |
| https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2606.10315
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
|
Access Paper:
- View PDF
- HTML (experimental)
- TeX Source
References & Citations
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article
Demos
Recommenders and Search Tools
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.
More from arXiv — NLP / Computation & Language
-
EDEN: A Large-Scale Corpus of Clinical Notes for Italian
Jun 12
-
Helping Figures Tell their Story! Paper-Grounded Video Generation Explaining Complex Scientific Figures
Jun 12
-
MARD: Mirror-Augmented Reasoning Distillation for Mechanism-Level Drug-Drug Interaction Prediction
Jun 12
-
Constrained Semantic Decompression in LLMs through Persian Proverb-Conditioned Story Generation
Jun 12
Discussion (0)
Sign in to join the discussion. Free account, 30 seconds — email code or GitHub.
Sign in →No comments yet. Sign in and be the first to say something.