arXiv preprint ·
Agreement Overstates Evidence: Error Dependence in LLM Judge Consensus
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Consensus among LLM judges is often taken as strong evidence that a decision is correct. This assumes that judges make their errors independently. In practice, LLM judges are often trained and evaluated in similar ways, so they can make the same mistakes. We study how this dependency affects the reliability of consensus. We find substantial error correlation across both open-weight and frontier LLM judges. In our main bank of ten judges, the average pairwise correlation between judge errors is 0.21. As a result, the ten judges only provide roughly as much statistical information as 3.5 independent judges. The dependency is even stronger among the high-accuracy frontier judges we evaluate, including judges from different providers. In up to 28% of our comparisons, ignoring shared errors leads to the conclusion that one system is significantly better, while accounting for them does not. We also find that the pattern of errors matters. Errors shared by most judges and errors concentrated among a smaller group affect consensus differently and favor different voting methods. Measuring the overall amount of correlation alone is therefore insufficient. Our results suggest a simple approach: use a small set of trusted examples to estimate judge accuracy and identify shared mistakes. These shared errors should then be considered when analyzing the results, and the voting method should be chosen using trusted examples before it is applied to new data.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Artificial Intelligence
SpecOpt: Contact-Diff Reasoning for Agentic Molecule Optimization Toward Binding Specificity
From Capability to Assurance in Autonomous Penetration-Testing Harnesses: A Framework and Reference Implementation
Implicit Rule Induction with Test-Time Task Embeddings in ARC-like Tasks
Self-Organizing Agent Teams Learn to Reason Together
SWE-Proof: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World Issues with Machine-Checked Proofs?
Get the few papers worth your time in Artificial Intelligence every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.