State-dependent error correlations shape voting thresholds in committees of AI agents
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Social simulation and multi-agent debate
Abstract (arXiv)
The aggregation benefit of a committee of artificial intelligence (AI) agents comes from complementary information across members. Classical voting guarantees assume independent errors. Language-model errors often co-occur on the same cases. We combine Sah-Stiglitz screening with error dependence that can differ between good and bad cases. In a homogeneous exchangeable Gaussian-copula model, shared errors create a positive asymptotic error floor for majority voting and can change the approval threshold that minimizes expected loss. We estimate a heterogeneous extension from 174,384 votes cast by 28 language models on four binary-screening benchmarks. Parameters estimated from odd-indexed items predicted committee loss on even-indexed items. For the sampled committee composition, the full-matrix dependence model increased identity-line R^2 from 0.840 under independence to 0.967. In a design-balanced analysis, cost-sensitive threshold selection under independence reduced scaled loss from 60.25 for majority to 52.50. Modeling dependence reduced it further to 50.77, an incremental improvement of 1.73 units (95% bootstrap CI, 0.68-2.33). The overall reduction from majority was 15.73% (95% bootstrap CI, 13.41-16.75%).
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Social simulation and multi-agent debate, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 21 of its 51 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 27 Jul 2026.
Builds on
21 of 51 references.
Closest ancestors · 1
Same direction, newest first
Other references · 20
- 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 9,743
- 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,393
- 2022Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Modelscited by 5,601
- 2021Program Synthesis with Large Language Modelscited by 3,509
- 2021TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human Falsehoodscited by 2,919
- 2023AutoGen: Enabling Next-Gen LLM Applications via Multi-Agent Conversationcited by 1,906
- 2023MetaGPT: Meta Programming for A Multi-Agent Collaborative Frameworkcited by 1,761
- 2023Improving Factuality and Reasoning in Language Models through Multiagent Debatecited by 1,739
- 2023ChatEval: Towards Better LLM-based Evaluators through Multi-Agent Debatecited by 724
- 2024Mixture-of-Agents Enhances Large Language Model Capabilitiescited by 420
- 2024Replacing Judges with Juries: Evaluating LLM Generations with a Panel of Diverse Modelscited by 301
- 2021Get Your Vitamin C! Robust Fact Verification with Contrastive Evidencecited by 222
8 more
- 2024More Agents Is All You Needcited by 174
- 2025Multi-Agent Risks from Advanced AIcited by 150
- 2025Towards a Science of Scaling Agent Systemscited by 125
- 2021Algorithmic Monoculture and Social Welfarecited by 98
- 2022Picking on the Same Person: Does Algorithmic Monoculture lead to Outcome Homogenization?cited by 89
- 2025Great Models Think Alike and this Undermines AI Oversightcited by 53
- 2025Correlated Errors in Large Language Modelscited by 42
- 2014When is a crowd wise?cited by 13
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.
2 papers.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Shared and structured inputs undermine collective random choice by reasoning AI agents
- 2026Nine Judges, Two Effective Votes: Correlated Errors Undermine LLM Evaluation Panels
- 2026Epistemic Filtering and Collective Hallucination: A Jury Theorem for Confidence-Calibrated Agents
- 2026Efficient Ensemble Selection from Binary and Pairwise Feedback
- 2025Debate or Vote: Which Yields Better Decisions in Multi-Agent Large Language Models?
- 2024LLM Voting: Human Choices and AI Collective Decision Making
- 2026Nonstandard Errors in AI Agents
- 2026Minority Sentinel: When to Overturn Majority Voting in Multi-Agent LLM Debates