Which Models Work Well Together? Measuring Heterogeneity for LLM Team Selection

Multi-AI collaboration, such as ensembling or debating large language models (LLMs), is a promising paradigm for aggregating information and boosting performance. A foundational step in these pipelines is to feed the responses of several proposer LLMs into a summarizer LLM, which synthesizes a better answer. However, choosing which proposers to include is non-trivial. Existing approaches primarily focus either on accuracy (picking the strongest models) or diversity (ensuring variety), and often overlook the interactions among proposers and with the summarizer. We reframe proposer selection as a combinatorial selection problem akin to feature selection, where the value of an LLM lies in its complementarity with others. However, directly applying standard feature-selection algorithms is impractical in the LLM setting due to prohibitive time complexity. Motivated by this limitation, we explore an extensive range of computationally feasible, greedy-style selection algorithms that assess complementarity using a small labeled set. Our experiments validate complementarity as a guiding principle for proposer selection and identify methods that achieve the best performance-cost trade-offs in practice.

Large language models (LLMs) remain limited on tasks requiring indirect reasoning, cultural knowledge, and coordinated hypothesis testing. We investigate whether team-based interaction improves LLM performance in What? Where? When? (ChGK), a quiz game designed to reward collective reasoning. We introduce three team strategies: Voting, Silent Team (the captain observes final answers), and Talkative Team (the captain observes both answers and rationales). To minimize data leakage, we evaluate these strategies on a dataset consisting of 572 ChGK questions released in 2025. Using six recent large-scale open models, we show that team-based strategies outperform single-model baselines, yielding gains of up to 20 percentage points in accuracy. The best team achieves 44.23% accuracy, and approaches human team performance on questions with available human statistics. Analysis of inter-model diversity reveals that disagreement strongly predicts lower accuracy, but explanatory communication substantially mitigates performance drops. We further examine captain behavior and find no evidence of self-preference bias; access to peer rationales improves captain judgments. Overall, LLM teams function primarily as answer selection and error-filtering mechanisms rather than generators of novel solutions. Our findings highlight the importance of interaction and suggest adaptive strategies as a promising direction for multi-agent systems.

Multi-LLM systems use multiple language models to deliberate, judge each other's outputs, or coordinate as agents. Their value depends on the models producing measurably different conversational behaviors when given the same input. Prior offline studies recommend drawing one model per family for behavioral diversity, because LLMs prefer outputs from their own family when rating one another in isolation. Whether the same family label predicts behavior in interactive multi-LLM systems, the setting that real deployed systems use, has not been tested. We study this with a 940,000-chain 11-checkpoint corpus and a 1.6M-chain same-base Llama factorial. On our validated headline metric, hedging, a reasoning-distilled Llama checkpoint shifts by 18% depending on which same-base partner it replies to, more than any cross-family hedging gap in the controlled subset. Qwen, closed-API, and runtime checks suggest the pattern is not isolated, while repair and challenge analyses remain exploratory because their surface-cue detectors are weaker. Overall, the results identify post-training recipe as a first-class axis for multi-LLM panel composition and show that model family alone is an incomplete proxy for conversational diversity.