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

Majority voting is the default unsupervised aggregator for multi-sample LLM inference, but it discards two signals: within-group answer entropy and between-group reasoning geometry. We aggregate by delegation instead (Propagational Proxy Voting, PPV): each group of samples keeps weight on its own answer in proportion to its entropy-based confidence (When) and routes the rest to peers by reasoning-embedding similarity (Whom); the stationary distribution of the resulting delegation matrix picks the consensus answer. This requires neither gold labels nor training. On MMLU-Pro with 128 samples per question, delegation beats majority by +1.5 pp overall and +2.24 pp on non-trivial questions (McNemar p ~ 1.0e-14, n = 8,099), overturning wrong majorities whose answer cluster is geometrically incoherent while the correct minority is tight. We then characterize exactly when delegation overturns majority: a two-option model gives a closed-form flip condition on each option's confidence and the weight it routes to the other, with a do-no-harm corollary for near-unanimous questions. The condition calls the realized winner on 96.5% of non-trivial questions, and its predicted mass gap tracks the realized gap at r = 0.97. We did not find any other unsupervised ensemble methods that close the oracle gap.

This paper provides an experimentally verified formal law for calculating the uplift that diversity of thought provides in Large Language Model (LLM) ensembles. From first principles, we derive an exact decomposition of LLM ensemble lift into rescue and damage masses, which yields a compact heuristic for calculating uplift. From this we extract the metrics which predict ensemble performance: an accuracy-adjusted correctness correlation, $φ_{\mathrm{adj}}$, together with the accuracy gap and collective accuracy of the pair. We test the law on 767,520 inferences from ten open-weight models over two graduate-level science benchmarks, together with a novel agentic cybersecurity benchmark in which each model conducts digital-forensics investigations by multi-turn tool use in a network-isolated sandbox (23,520 graded trials including abstentions); all votes are released openly. Calibrated once on SuperGPQA at a 40:60 vote split, the heuristic predicts lift on the calibration set with Spearman's $ρ=0.84$ and, with its coefficients frozen, transfers to two datasets never used in calibration ($ρ=0.51$ on GPQA Diamond and $0.84$ on the forensic tasks), whilst the measured swap mass tracks realised lift with $R^2\ge 0.96$ throughout. Raw $φ$ has almost no predictive power ($R^2\le 0.09$ throughout); the accuracy-adjusted $φ_{\mathrm{adj}}$ is markedly superior ($R^2=0.67$ on SuperGPQA), and the heuristic combining these metrics is the most stable pre-pooling predictor across the three datasets.

LLMs are increasingly used as automated judges for model training and evaluation, yet individual judges exhibit systematic biases that undermine reliability. Much of prior work has studied biases in pairwise LLM-as-a-judge settings; in this paper, we focus on absolute scoring tasks, which mirror more realistic use cases. Across four benchmarks and six models (36 judge-examinee pairs), we show that a model's task accuracy strongly predicts its judging accuracy (Pearson $r \geq 0.90$ on most models) and inversely predicts its directional bias ($r \leq -0.83$), but that accuracy alone does not ensure fair evaluation: more capable examinee models consistently receive more lenient judgments from all judges ($r \geq 0.83$). To address this, we propose calibrated weighted majority voting (WMV), an ensemble evaluation method that aggregates multiple LLM judges weighted by online estimates of their false-positive and false-negative rates. We introduce a disagreement-based estimator that derives these error rates purely from inter-judge agreement patterns, requiring no ground-truth labels or task metadata. In a simulated experiment with shifting task distributions, our label-free WMV tracks an oracle with perfect error-rate knowledge to within 0.5 percentage points on average, outperforming both individual judges and unweighted majority voting. These results demonstrate that principled multi-judge calibration can simultaneously improve accuracy and correct for systematic leniency without requiring labeled data, offering a scalable path to reliable automated evaluation as model capabilities increase.