Skip to content
Preprint

Blind to the Pivotal Vote: Aggregate Independence Metrics Miss Where Verification Actually Helps

Aug 2026 · 0 citations · 15 references
Computer Science

Abstract

LLM judge panels are a standard evaluation tool, but prior work reports highly correlated panel errors: nine judges provide roughly the effective information of two independent ones, and aggregation closes only a small fraction of the gap. A natural remedy--a signal from a different evidence source, e.g., executing a test suite--produced no distinguishable change in the panel's effective-vote count at scale (-0.04, 95\% CI [-0.10, +0.02]). Aggregate dependence and conditional decision utility are different questions. Elementary majority arithmetic fixes the affected set for single-ballot substitution: only decisions with a one-vote margin can change. The empirical question is whether panel error rates rise and useful substitutions concentrate there. They do: the entire accuracy gain concentrates on these pivotal queries, where it is large (+10.4 to +23.3 percentage points across three headline configurations), and is exactly zero elsewhere. We confirm the pattern across three code benchmarks and four panel sizes (a 9-judge extension and 56 dependent subsampling checks, gain +6.5 to +16.1 percentage points). On HumanEval+/MBPP+, a majority-side replacement rule raises overall accuracy from 82.44\% to 85.62\% while invoking the signal on 16.2\% of queries; signal-only remains stronger at 87.60\%. Thus population-level dependence diagnostics and margin-stratified utility are complementary, and the affected-set characterization yields a call-reduction rule for any specified single-ballot substitution policy.

View source

Similar papers

Preprint Aug 2026

Funnel of Thoughts: Efficient Test-Time Scaling via Early Voting and Rollout Pruning

Funnel of Thoughts (FoT) is introduced, an inference-time method that preserves the full 32-trajectory voted accuracy while halving its attention FLOPs, a 28.8% reduction in full-model inference cost.

Chanhee Park, Sun Han, Jeongho Yoon et al. · 0 citations
Preprint Aug 2026

Split the Labor: Separating Evidence Interpretation from Decision Aggregation

This work proposes a four-field evidence tuple (hypothesis, reliability bucket, rationale, provenance, provenance) and shows that fixing it determines both halves of the framework and applies to a class of rules beyond language models: score-summing triage engines, diagnostic panels scored by counting positives, and additive multi-signal detectors.

Zhe-Lun Wu · 1 citation
Jul 2026

OptimismBench: Forecasting Bias and the Alignment Effect in Language Model Judgment

This work introduces OptimismBench, which detects directional bias with inverted pairs: each scenario elicits both P(success) and P(failure), and asymmetry between the two framings yields a signed bias score without ground truth.

Seonglae Cho, A. Koshiyama · 0 citations
Preprint Aug 2026

Certifying Compressed Language Models: An Audit and a Statistical Toolkit

Paired equivalence testing at a declared margin is supply: paired equivalence testing at a declared margin, with certification tables giving the items an evaluation needs, computed from disagreement observed under compression, not from independent-binomial variance.

Amogh Singh · 0 citations
Preprint Aug 2026

Anchoring Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge Systems: Prior Scores Compromise Evaluation Independence

It is shown that prior scores, even when included only as context metadata, anchor judgments and systematically shift ratings toward their values, and effective mitigation must be validated for the intended model and task or domain.

A. Kapetanović, Kemal Altwlkany, Andro Merćep et al. · 0 citations
Jul 2026

Are Diversity Metrics Measuring Diversity? A Capability-Controlled Audit of Majority-Vote Gain in LLM Ensembles

Majority voting over LLMs is widely assumed to benefit from diversity, and diversity measures are used to choose which models to combine. We ask whether five such measures track diversity or mainly re-express capability, auditing them as predictors of majority-vote gain over the best member across 31,900 subsets of 30 LLMs on MMLU-Pro (29 on TruthfulQA) under explicit capability controls. Three findings emerge. First, latent complementarity is ubiquitous: oracle gain is positive in 100% of subsets, yet simple voting beats the strongest member in only 9.98% of all canonical size-3 subsets (18.71% with held-out best selection); the pooled size-2-4 rate is 1.27%, partly reflecting deterministic even-size voting behavior. Second, a joint-correctness proxy (strict diversity) is nearly collinear with one minus mean accuracy (size-3 Spearman rho = +0.991 / +0.988); raw diversity-gain associations are strongly capability-entangled and, with one exception, unstable under control. Third, three linear contingency-table statistics are algebraically non-separable; after capability control, the empirically stable remainder is a modest residual pairwise co-failure association in which more shared error corresponds to lower gain. This direction is robust, but its magnitude is configuration-dependent. Joint rawspace linear regressions treating strict diversity, disagreement, and double-fault as independent predictors are rank-deficient by construction.

Donghwan Kim · 4 citations

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.