Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Research

aiqbench analysis

This research audit reveals that standard diversity metrics in LLM ensembles are largely proxies for model capability rather than true informational divergence, significantly undermining their utility for selecting effective voting combinations. The study demonstrates that after controlling for accuracy, the only robust signal remaining is a modest association where models sharing specific errors tend to fail together, challenging the widespread assumption that disagreement equates to beneficial diversity. For practitioners building ensemble systems, this implies that relying on superficial diversity scores may lead to suboptimal model selection strategies compared to direct capability-based approaches.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

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

arXiv3 min read

arXiv:2607.20768v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: 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.

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

Abstract: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.

Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Machine Learning (cs.LG)

arXiv:2607.20768 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2607.20768v1 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2607.20768 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 314 words

Related coverage