Grounded but Not Immune: Confirmation Bias in Agent-as-a-judge
arXiv:2611.05662v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Evaluating open-ended agent tasks increasingly falls to an Agent-as-a-Judge: an evaluator handed tools and the agent's full trajectory so it can verify a result against the environment. The premise is that a judge that gathers its own evidence should be grounded by it. We show that this grounding does not immunize the judge against confirmation bias: a single false pre-screening note, attributed to an authority and carrying no evidential bearing on
Read original source
Source record
Research analysis
Research claim
Paper identifier: 2611.05662. Source account: arXiv:2611.05662v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Evaluating open-ended agent tasks increasingly falls to an Agent-as-a-Judge: an evaluator handed tools and the agent's full trajectory so it can verify a result against the environment. The premise is that a judge that gathers its own evidence should be grounded by it. We show that this grounding does not immunize the judge against confirmation bias: a single false pre-screening note, attributed to an authority and carrying no evidential bearing on
Evaluation record
Recent records to compare: “Who Should Know What? Empirical Information Design for Multi-Agent LLM Economies” (arXiv, Nov 6, 2026); “Don't Prompt Your Agents. Equip Them: Skillware as a Modular Standard for Sovereign, Auditable, and Deterministic Capability Execution for Logical Sys” (arXiv, Nov 6, 2026). Shared themes are navigation hints; they have not been verified as the same need or independent corroboration.
What the result supports
Interpret results only for the reported model version, task, data and inference budget. Community votes, downloads or a benchmark position do not establish reliability in a different workflow.
Validity gaps
Check sample selection, baseline configuration, uncertainty, contamination risk, negative results and access to code or weights. No reproduction by WeWorkBuddy is recorded here.
Verification plan
Read the paper or model card and its evaluation appendix. Reproduce one bounded result against the stated baseline, then test a representative user task and record where the conclusion fails.