Inferred Generative-Process Diversity Predicts Correlated Failure Across Language Models

Diversity is essential for language-model applications ranging from creative generation to scientific discovery, yet modern LLMs often collapse into a narrow subset of plausible outputs. While prior work has developed benchmarks for measuring this lack of diversity, less is known about how the step-by-step probability distributions at inference time cause the problem. We introduce a validity--diversity framework that attributes diversity collapse to how an LLM allocates probability mass across valid and invalid continuations during decoding. This framework decomposes the bottleneck into two complementary forms of miscalibration. First, order calibration: valid tokens are not reliably ranked above invalid tokens, so rank-based cutoff rules must trade off between recovering valid continuations and admitting invalid ones. Second, shape calibration: probability mass is overly concentrated only on few valid continuations while having a heavy-tail of mixed valid and invalid tokens, so maintaining high validity limits diversity. We formalize both mechanisms and show that local failures compound across decoding steps, producing strong sequence-level losses in diversity. Empirically, we develop controlled diagnostics for probing these bottlenecks, including tasks with exactly known valid sets and oracle cutoff baselines. Across 14 language models spanning multiple families and scales, we find that diversity collapse is not merely a limitation of particular sampling heuristics, but a consequence of order and shape miscalibration in the LLM distribution.

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.