Telling LLM code reviewers how costly mistakes are changes the risk numbers they give and makes decisions worse; separating probability elicitation from policy—combining a policy-free reviewer, an independent monitor, and a coded decision rule—improves calibration and reduces decision loss under equal-cost settings.

Main Finding

When the downstream decision policy (a printed cost-and-threshold block) changes, LLM code-reviewers change the numeric failure probability they report even though the patch and evidence are held fixed. This policy dependence materially increases probability error and decision loss. Separating probability elicitation from policy (a modular pipeline: policy-free reviewer score + independent monitor + coded decision rule) improves equal-cost probability accuracy and reduces decision loss, but the available scores are not accurate enough to support nontrivial acceptance at high false-accept costs (e.g., 10:1).

Key Points

• Scope and scale

  • 720 candidate patches from 360 Python repo issues (for each issue the dataset includes one patch that passed and one that failed an archived test harness).
  • 15,792 reviewer responses across four deployed reviewer interfaces.
  • Reviewers evaluated: DeepSeek-V4-Pro, Grok-4.3, Mistral-medium-3.5, GPT-5.5/Codex.
  • Independent monitor: Gemini 3.5 Flash (continuous failure score).

• Policy dependence

  • Replacing an equal-cost prompt with a 10:1 false-accept-policy (cost-10 prompt) changed reported failure probabilities by 13.6–16.9 percentage points on average across reviewers (matched calls with fixed evidence).
  • Policy-induced movement exceeds natural same-prompt repeat variation for three of four systems.
  • Cost-10 prompt worsened average Brier score by ≈ 0.0323 [0.0207, 0.0437].

• Decision impact

  • Actions returned by the cost-10 (one-prompt) reviewer prompts produced per-issue loss of 2.550, 1.365, 2.480, and 3.740 for DeepSeek, Grok, Mistral, and GPT/Codex respectively — all worse than a reject-all baseline loss of 1.
  • Holding the cost-10 decision rule fixed in code and applying it instead to probabilities elicited under the equal-cost prompt reduced loss for every reviewer (e.g., DeepSeek loss reduced from 2.55 → 1.13; reductions reported in Table 3). This shows that probability elicitation under high-cost prompts contributes substantially to excess loss.

• Modular pipeline results

  • Design: ask reviewer only for a policy-free failure probability; separately obtain monitor score; calibrate/combine scores in code (logit-linear fusion), then apply cost-derived threshold in code.
  • At equal costs, the combined pipeline:
    • Accepts 57.5–67.5% of patches (varies by reviewer+monitor combination).
    • Reduces mean loss per issue by ≈ 0.0725 [0.0285, 0.1167] relative to calibrated reviewer-only scoring.
    • Average per-issue loss values: ~0.69–0.85 (vs. reject-all = 1).
  • At false-accept cost 10:1, the pipeline accepts none (matches reject-all loss of 1). Thus the pipeline avoids high-cost excess losses but lacks the score quality required to approve nontrivial fractions at 10:1.

• Role of the monitor

  • The independent monitor often outperforms weaker reviewers (DeepSeek, Grok, Mistral) on held-out Brier score; for GPT/Codex the reviewer was stronger and fusion provided only a small/uncertain gain.
  • Simple additive/logit-linear fusion (bp = σ(β0 + βR zR + βM zM)) was sufficient; more complex interaction terms produced negligible gains on calibration data.

• Robustness and statistical approach

  • Matched within-issue experiments (same patch, same monitor output, same context) isolate the effect of prompt policy text.
  • Primary metrics: Brier score (probability quality), cost-weighted decision loss, acceptance rate.
  • Inference via 20,000-repository bootstrap (preserving matched calls), plus intersection–union tests for claims across all reviewers.

• Limitations (noted by authors)

  • Results concern four fixed reviewer interfaces and an archived harness outcome; not a universal claim about all models, prompts, or downstream environments.
  • The 50% balanced candidate-level failure rate is a construction of the benchmark (each issue contributes one pass and one fail), so some arms are controls rather than population-calibration exercises.

Data & Methods

• Data

  • 360 issues from SWE-rebench, split into calibration sets A (80 issues), B (80 issues), and test set (200 issues).
  • For each issue: one passing and one failing patch selected deterministically (720 patches total).
  • 15,792 reviewer responses comprising risk-only calls, controlled calls (matched conditions), operational calls, and repeat measurements.

• Models & tooling

  • Reviewers: DeepSeek-V4-Pro (Azure), Grok-4.3 (Azure), Mistral-medium-3.5 (Azure GlobalStandard), GPT-5.5/Codex (Codex CLI).
  • Monitor: Gemini 3.5 Flash (pinned realization).

• Prompt conditions (main comparisons)

  • A: Equal cost — assumed prior 0.5, false-reject cost = 1, false-accept cost = 1, threshold τ = 0.5.
  • B: Low prior — assumed prior 0.1, costs like A (control for prior change).
  • C: Cost-10 — assumed prior 0.5, false-accept cost = 10, threshold τ ≈ 0.091.
  • D: Cost-20 similarly.
  • Shared question: elicit probability of HARNESS_FAILING and a decision (ACCEPT/REJECT) with a required JSON schema.

• Matched experiment design

  • Operational panel: 400 matched equal-cost vs cost-10 pairs per reviewer (same issue/patch/monitor card).
  • Controlled panel: 160 matched equal-cost / low-prior / cost-10 per reviewer across 33 repos; order balanced.
  • Repeat measurements included to estimate same-prompt variability.

• Calibration & fusion

  • Reviewer and monitor raw scores transformed via logit after clipping to [.001, .999].
  • Fusion model: bp = σ(β0 + βR zR + βM zM) with coefficients fitted on calibration data and frozen for test evaluation.
  • Binary WARNING/CLEAR card derived from monitor with calibration set A; performance measured on calibration set B and test set.

• Metrics & inference

  • Brier score for probability quality; decision loss computed with printed costs (accept fail = c; reject pass = 1; correct = 0), loss per issue sums both patches (reject-all loss = 1).
  • Bootstrap confidence intervals (20k repository-level samples), nested refitting checks for calibration models, and intersection–union tests for multi-reviewer claims.

Implications for AI Economics

• Scores must be treated as reusable information goods distinct from policy. When downstream policy text can change reported probabilities, a score’s economic value (e.g., calibrating across teams, caching, comparing vendors) is undermined:

  • Transaction costs increase if policies must be re-elicited per decision context.
  • Market comparability (benchmarks, certifications) is compromised if scores conflate risk and policy.

• Modularization reduces economic risk and improves auditability:

  • Separating risk estimation, independent monitoring, and coded decision rules makes probability signals reusable across contexts with different cost structures, lowering coordination and operational costs (e.g., easier contractual SLAs, simpler impact assessments).
  • Modular pipelines support cheaper updates: improving the decision rule or costs requires only code changes, not repeated model elicitation or retraining.

• Calibration and external monitors are valuable investments:

  • Independent monitors can substitute for weaker reviewers and improve expected loss under common-cost regimes, suggesting that buyers should value monitored + fused systems higher than single-model black-box reviewers.
  • Calibration/fusion infrastructure (data, calibration sets, refit procedures) has positive return when decisions are cost-sensitive.

• Principal–agent and accountability considerations:

  • If models adapt reported probabilities to the decision framing they receive, incentives and reporting can be manipulated (intentionally or unintentionally), increasing moral hazard and complicating cost allocations between teams (e.g., dev vs ops).
  • Regulators or auditors requiring reproducible risk scores should mandate policy-free risk elicitation or standardized decision interfaces to preserve meaning.

• Limits on deployable automation under high asymmetric costs:

  • The study shows that current reviewer+monitor scores may support automation (accept some patches) under symmetric/equal-cost settings but not under high false-accept penalties (10:1), where modular pipelines default to reject-all. Economic models that assume automated approval at low human oversight will need to account for the substantial accuracy required to safely operate under asymmetric costs.

• Evaluation and procurement

  • Procurement and benchmark design should test policy-independence explicitly (measure how scores change when only policy text changes) and prefer modular API designs that return policy-free risk estimates.
  • Pricing, warranties, and insurance for automated code-review services should reflect the distinction between (a) reported risk accuracy and (b) policy-sensitive behavior; vendors might be paid more for verifiably policy-free, calibrated risk outputs.

In short: the decision policy shown to an LLM reviewer can leak into the numeric risk it reports, materially worsening cost-sensitive outcomes. From an AI economics perspective, that favors system designs and procurement practices that separate risk elicitation, monitoring, and decision rules to improve reuse, comparability, auditability, and economic efficiency.