arXiv AI

Business Truth, not SQL Accuracy: A Rule-Gated 7B Analytics Agent Outperforms a Direct-Prompted 32B Baseline

arXiv:2608. 09254v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM analytics agents are evaluated on SQL syntax accuracy, but production failures look different: questions with two valid business definitions, questions the warehouse cannot answer, deprecated columns after a schema change, and queries that execute successfully while returning the wrong business number.

arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 14

What Drives Recovery in Agentic Text-to-Cypher? LAST-CQ: An LLM Agent Self-Refinement Framework

The paper introduces LAST-CQ, a five-agent, training‑free, execution‑grounded framework for Text‑to‑Cypher that evaluates which components of an agentic pipeline contribute most to performance. Experiments on 2,471 live‑database queries across six backbones show that removing correction reduces execution‑BLEU by 3.1–12.3%, while substituting schema‑grounded feedback with raw error strings has negligible impact. Parallel sampling degrades quality by 10–11%, whereas failure detection and retry routing recover 91.7% of initially failed queries, highlighting that simple failure handling is more effective than sophisticated feedback or increased sampling.

By Ioannis Prokopiou, Athanasios Aidinis, Panagiotis-Christos Kyrmpatsos, Pantelis Vikatos
arXiv Machine Learning
4d ago

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

The paper investigates how language‑model judges can make version‑dependent errors when evaluating upgraded agents. Using 35 public coding‑agent submissions, two customer‑service agents, and over a thousand expert‑labeled trajectories, the authors show that fixed judges often reject task‑conditioned error invariance and can incorrectly approve failed patches, especially as agent capability increases. Paired audits of current outputs reduce interval width only marginally, and the study concludes that independent human patch review is still necessary.

By Jiapeng Li
arXiv AI
Sep 24

Ask Which, Not How Good: Sizing Benchmarks Scored by an LLM

The study analyzes 373,019 judgments from LLM‑scored benchmarks, decomposing variance into system, item, judge, and interaction components via generalizability theory. It finds that with a single judge, generalizability converges to a ceiling determined by the system‑by‑judge variance, which is substantially lower in pairwise preference settings, allowing one judge to suffice. The research also reveals significant biases in presentation order and highlights that many published win‑rate claims fall below the measured floor of the benchmarks.

By Atul Anand