# When Outputs Disperse, Does Epistemic Revision Follow? A Black-Box Diagnostic for Machine Collectives

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.03722 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.03722/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 10 of its 24 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 4 Aug 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 10 of 10)

- [Inference-Time Intervention: Eliciting Truthful Answers from a Language Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.03341/) (2023)
- [Encouraging Divergent Thinking in Large Language Models through Multi-Agent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.19118/) (2023)
- [The Linear Representation Hypothesis and the Geometry of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.03658/) (2023)
- [The Geometry of Truth: Emergent Linear Structure in Large Language Model Representations of True/False Datasets](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06824/) (2023)
- [Simulating Opinion Dynamics with Networks of LLM-based Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.09618/) (2023)
- [Systematic Biases in LLM Simulations of Debates](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.04049/) (2024)
- [Free-MAD: Consensus-Free Multi-Agent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.11035/) (2025)
- [Echoing: Identity Failures when LLM Agents Talk to Each Other](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.09710/) (2025)
- [Many LLMs Are More Utilitarian Than One](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.00814/) (2025)
- [Emergent Convergence in Multi-Agent LLM Annotation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.00047/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Collective intelligence research treats disagreement as evidence of epistemic diversity: if agents express different views, the group should retain capacity to revise. In LLM collectives this proxy can break: agents can produce diverse-looking arguments while preserving the same conclusion. We operationalize dispersion-revision coupling: the degree to which an intervention that verifiably increases the dispersion of a collective's outputs in embedding space is accompanied by genuine revision of its epistemic stance rather than premise-preserving reformulation. The diagnostic is black-box: it operates on generated text alone and makes no claims about the internal representations of the generating models. Two channels are measured independently: an output channel, the Coherence Index (CI), verifies that the intervention changed output dispersion; an epistemic channel, per-turn stance annotation, measures whether the collective revised. We propose CI with the Meta-Predictive Clarity System (MPCS), which inserts a Re-Differentiation Protocol (RDP) when outputs over-converge, as a reusable method for estimating this coupling regime. We evaluate five-agent collectives from two configurations (gpt-4o-mini and gemini-2.5-flash; 310 paired episodes per condition). On gpt-4o-mini, conditional dissent improves false-premise recovery by +17.7 points (p<1e-6) while static persona diversity harms recovery (-8.1, p=.007). On gemini-2.5-flash, the same intervention at a comparable budget yields no gain (26.1% vs 27.1%, p=.84) despite a verified dispersion drop; the two treatment effects differ from each other (z=3.79, p<.001). Mechanism tagging shows Gemini preserves the false premise via intra-framework dissent: 94% of tagged post-RDP responses reformulate rather than concede (vs 24% on GPT). We recommend reporting per-intervention stance shift and premise-preservation rate alongside accuracy.