Sixteen models, fewer than two voices: measuring ensemble dispersion where no answer is uniquely correct
Authors: Mario Vega-Barbas, Lidia Mora-Valenciano, Iván Pau, Fernando Seoane, Farhad Abtahi
Organizations: ETSIS de Telecomunicación, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Madrid, Madrid, Spain · Independent Researcher, Guadalajara, Spain · Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, Huddinge, Stockholm, Sweden · Department of Clinical Physiology, Karolinska University Hospital, Huddinge, Stockholm, Sweden · Department of Medical Technology, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden · Department of Textile Technology, University of Borås, Borås, Västra Götaland, Sweden · Department of Biomedical Engineering and Health Systems, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Huddinge, Stockholm, Sweden
Abstract
Sixteen language models drawn from ten families produced, on average, the semantic diversity of 1.69 distinct formulations of a psychotherapeutic case, against a single-model baseline of 1.43 from one model's own runs. Ensembles place more than one reading before a decision-maker on the premise that several models supply several perspectives. Dispersion over their outputs is measured both as diversity and as uncertainty, and both traditions validate it against a correctness criterion that this task does not admit. Measuring diversity is a solved problem: the Vendi Score, the exponential of the von Neumann entropy of a similarity matrix, is an effective number of distinct elements. What a single aggregate does not say is where the diversity comes from. We define a per-model dissent contribution, the complement of a model's mean similarity to the other members of its ensemble: a magnitude from the same matrix, not a decomposition of the spectral index, whose maximum identifies the most divergent voice. Crossing model and case, we test as a preregistered hypothesis whether model identity accounts for a non-zero share of the variance in dissent, and characterise the structure that test detects. The panel formulated fifteen stratified vignettes, yielding 7,082 formulations for analysis. Model identity was a detectable structuring factor of the dissent that remained, but the usual categories recovered it only partly: scale differences pointed in opposite directions across pairs, family grouped models on only five two-member lines, and the most divergent voice changed with panel composition, so that the surfaced outlier describes the ensemble rather than the model. Dissent did not track the interpretive openness for which the case bank was stratified; it was organised by clinical content instead, leaving the dispersion an ensemble produces a property to measure rather than assume.
Heterogeneous language-model ensembles expand the space of candidate responses, yet they lack a principled criterion for when a newly generated answer should supersede an already supported one. We decouple candidate headroom from replacement authority, rendering the latter as an explicit, auditable object. Our proposed method, Agreement-Before-Diversity (ABD), is a frozen, label-free decision rule: an anchor answer is retained if two additional trusted samples corroborate it under a fixed equivalence relation; otherwise, it is replaced by a heterogeneous synthesis. For this gating mechanism, we prove two exact identities. The first shows that the accuracy gap relative to unconditional synthesis is determined jointly by the agreement coverage and the anchor's advantage on the protected subset. The second shows that the gap relative to never synthesizing reflects a contrast between authorized recovery and authorized destruction. Neither identity assumes independence or calibrated confidence, and the expected inference cost is approximately eight minus five times the coverage in number of calls. Under blind, exact-ID evaluation, ABD achieves 59.43% on the complete LiveCodeBench-v6 (vs. 52.57% for Single9 and 52.00% for HAC; n = 175) and 75.00% on an untouched GPQA-Diamond split (both controls at 72.78%; n = 180). Furthermore, these identities localize every aggregate difference to an enumerable protected stratum: no discordant items occur among the 3 protected cases on LiveCodeBench, where coverage bounds the gate's contribution to 1.71 points a priori; 13 versus 8 discordant cases among 132 on GPQA-Diamond; and 12 versus 0 among 71 under a frozen anchor perturbation. Diversity supplies potential; verification structure supplies authority.
Diversity is a widely observed factor in the resilient function of collective systems, yet the type of diversity that matters depends on the properties and failure modes of the system. This distinction is important for systems composed of multiple language models. Different models may be treated as independent components even when their behaviour and failures remain strongly correlated. Assessments of language-model populations using semantic similarity demonstrate limited semantic diversity, but this captures only differences in the meaning of observed outputs. We argue that a more fundamental notion of model diversity is generative-process diversity, the differences between processes capable of generating the observed outputs. Drawing from Algorithmic Information Theory, we use Normalised Compression Distance between raw model outputs, residualised against a permutation control, as a measure of inferred generative-process diversity. Across 38 language models, this measure identifies population structure missed by semantic similarity and predicts cross-task variation in chance-corrected correlated failure among model pairs across ten disjoint benchmark families, beyond semantic similarity and model-pair capability. The cross-benchmark partial rank association is −0.216 with a 95% interval of [−0.309,−0.122], and the estimate is negative on all ten benchmarks. These results indicate that increased generative-process diversity is associated with reduced correlated failure in model pairs that is not attributable to semantic similarity or capability. Inferred generative-process diversity offers a novel and practical approach for investigating diversity of multi-model systems in safety-relevant contexts.
Claims that language models homogenise are usually measured against human judgements collected for the study, which makes the human side an artifact of the design: a crowdworker given the model's instruction is running the model's prompt. We measure convergence against a human reference nobody built for the purpose -- 2,523 reader mark sets across 120 web documents, produced by people highlighting for their own reasons on a platform where the overlay of others' marks is off by default. Agreement is the overlap between two size-matched sentence sets minus the overlap expected when each is resampled within its own depth-and-length bands. The null's calibration is demonstrated, not asserted: every pair involving a random baseline lands within 0.006 of zero. On the median document each party names 14 sentences of 70; two readers share 4.1 and two models 8.7. Across 18 model arms spanning 11 vendors, 3 countries and both weight regimes, the median of 153 model pairs is +0.093 against a human yardstick of +0.040, and 99 sit entirely above the human interval. Two frontier models from rival labs reach +0.203, twice what GPT-4o agrees with itself on a second call. The effect is not determinism, prompt wording, procedure, vendor or routing, and it is graded: the smallest models agree at the human level. No model agrees with readers detectably more than a reader does, and at equal depth and length no surface feature separates their choices. The multiples are procedure-dependent and the ordering is not: models are cut to their sharpest set while a reader's is a random draw from what they marked, and blunting the models alike halves the gap without closing it. Tested out of sample on four models released after this analysis, against predictions fixed beforehand, none clears the human interval. A population simulated from several models is not several populations.