Agreement Overstates Evidence: Error Dependence in LLM Judge ConsensusAgreement Overstates Evidence: Error Dependence in LLM Judge Consensus

Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence

[Submitted on 18 Sep 2026]

Title:Agreement Overstates Evidence: Error Dependence in LLM Judge Consensus

View PDF HTML (experimental)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.

Submission history

From: Md Elias Hossain [view email][v1] Fri, 18 Sep 2026 19:20:40 UTC (2,328 KB)

References & Citations

Loading...

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)

Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)

Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)

scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)

CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)

DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)

Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)

Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)

ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)

Demos

Recommenders and Search Tools

Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)

CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.