# Multimodal Evaluator Preference Collapse: Cross-Modal Coupling in Self-Evolving Agents

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.16682 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.16682/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Multimodal and embodied agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 18 of its 33 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 15 Jun 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Multimodal and embodied agents](https://mlsanity.com/agents/multimodal-and-embodied-agents/)
- Synthetic data and self-improvement for LLMs / [Self-improving MLLMs and synthetic data](https://mlsanity.com/synth/self-improving-mllms-and-synthetic-data/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 18 of 18)

- [ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.03629/) (2022)
- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [GPT-4o System Card](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.21276/) (2024)
- [Flamingo: a Visual Language Model for Few-Shot Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2204.14198/) (2022)
- [Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.11366/) (2023)
- [Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17651/) (2023)
- [Gemini 1.5: Unlocking multimodal understanding across millions of tokens of context](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.05530/) (2024)
- [ViLBERT: Pretraining Task-Agnostic Visiolinguistic Representations for Vision-and-Language Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1908.02265/) (2019)
- [Voyager: An Open-Ended Embodied Agent with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.16291/) (2023)
- [Chatbot Arena: An Open Platform for Evaluating LLMs by Human Preference](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.04132/) (2024)
- [Scaling Laws for Reward Model Overoptimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.10760/) (2022)
- [Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.13548/) (2023)
- [Discovering Language Model Behaviors with Model-Written Evaluations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.09251/) (2022)
- [Open Problems and Fundamental Limitations of Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.15217/) (2023)
- [Self-Rewarding Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.10020/) (2024)
- [Self-Play Fine-Tuning Converts Weak Language Models to Strong Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.01335/) (2024)
- [Weak-to-Strong Generalization: Eliciting Strong Capabilities With Weak Supervision](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.09390/) (2023)
- [CM3: A Causal Masked Multimodal Model of the Internet](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.07520/) (2022)

## Abstract (arXiv)

When AI agents use language models to evaluate their own outputs in a feedback loop, systematic biases emerge. We show that Evaluator Preference Collapse (EPC) is dramatically amplified in multimodal settings. Using GPT-4o to evaluate DeepSeek-chat across text and visual tasks, we find that a single strategy (step_by_step) absorbs 48.4% of all weight -- 3.2x the collapse observed in text-only self-evaluation -- while three visual-domain strategies receive only 9.1% combined weight. We then demonstrate a novel phenomenon we term cross-modal coupling: evaluator preferences acquired on one modality transfer to and corrupt strategy selection on another. Through a four-phase isolation training paradigm, we measure coupling coefficients and document strategy inversion -- the optimal strategy for a modality reverses after cross-modal exposure. A Phase 3 statistical validation across five evaluator configurations (N=80 total independent repetitions, ~35,000 API calls) with both text-proxy and real-image visual tasks finds: cross-model evaluation produces strong coupling (JSD~0.19-0.34), real-image inputs yield the most directionally consistent signal (mean gamma_{T->V}=1.145, gamma_{V->T}=0.937, 70% T->V, Cohen's d=0.56), and self-evaluation provides near-complete immunity -- 97% of runs (N=30) yield zero coupling (JSD=0.003, d=0.07). Three methodological ablations and multi-executor validation confirm the effect is not a structural artifact. We introduce the coupling matrix indexed by evaluator identity, release the MM-EPC framework, and identify cross-model evaluator architecture as the primary risk factor for preference drift. Code and data: https://github.com/aidless/mm-epc.