An LLM-as-Judge Metric for Bridging the Gap with Human Evaluation in SE Tasks

Large Language Models (LLMs) and other automated techniques have been increasingly used to support software developers by generating software artifacts such as code snippets, patches, and comments. However, accurately assessing the correctness of these generated artifacts remains a significant challenge. On one hand, human evaluation provides high accuracy but is labor-intensive and lacks scalability. On the other hand, other existing automatic evaluation metrics are scalable and require minimal human effort, but they often fail to accurately reflect the actual correctness of generated software artifacts. In this paper, we present SWE-Judge, the first evaluation metric for LLM-as-Ensemble-Judge specifically designed to accurately assess the correctness of generated software artifacts. SWE-Judge first defines five distinct evaluation strategies, each implemented as an independent judge. A dynamic team selection mechanism then identifies the most appropriate subset of judges to produce a final correctness score through ensembling. We evaluate SWE-Judge across a diverse set of software engineering (SE) benchmarks, including CoNaLa, Card2Code, HumanEval-X, APPS, APR-Assess, and Summary-Assess. These benchmarks span three SE tasks: code generation, automated program repair, and code summarization. Experimental results demonstrate that SWE-Judge consistently achieves a higher correlation with human judgments, with improvements ranging from 5.9% to 183.8% over existing automatic metrics. Furthermore, SWE-Judge reaches agreement levels with human annotators that are comparable to inter-annotator agreement in code generation and program repair tasks. These findings underscore SWE-Judge's potential as a scalable and reliable alternative to human evaluation.