# Blind to the Pivotal Vote: Aggregate Independence Metrics Miss Where Verification Actually Helps

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.06940 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.06940/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 11 of its 15 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 7 Aug 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 11 of 11)

- [Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.03374/) (2021)
- [Program Synthesis with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2108.07732/) (2021)
- [LiveCodeBench: Holistic and Contamination Free Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.07974/) (2024)
- [Is Your Code Generated by ChatGPT Really Correct? Rigorous Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.01210/) (2023)
- [FrugalGPT: How to Use Large Language Models While Reducing Cost and Improving Performance](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.05176/) (2023)
- [Selective Classification for Deep Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1705.08500/) (2017)
- [Replacing Judges with Juries: Evaluating LLM Generations with a Panel of Diverse Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.18796/) (2024)
- [Consistent Estimators for Learning to Defer to an Expert](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2006.01862/) (2020)
- [Nine Judges, Two Effective Votes: Correlated Errors Undermine LLM Evaluation Panels](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.29800/) (2026)
- [A Statistical Framework for Auditing Behavioral Dependence and Induced Bias in LLM Judges](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.07650/) (2026)
- [FregeLogic at SemEval 2026 Task 11: A Hybrid Neuro-Symbolic Architecture for Content-Robust Syllogistic Validity Prediction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.18328/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

LLM judge panels are a standard evaluation tool, but prior work reports highly correlated panel errors: nine judges provide roughly the effective information of two independent ones, and aggregation closes only a small fraction of the gap. A natural remedy--a signal from a different evidence source, e.g., executing a test suite--produced no distinguishable change in the panel's effective-vote count at scale (-0.04, 95% CI [-0.10, +0.02]). Aggregate dependence and conditional decision utility are different questions. Elementary majority arithmetic fixes the affected set for single-ballot substitution: only decisions with a one-vote margin can change. The empirical question is whether panel error rates rise and useful substitutions concentrate there. They do: the entire accuracy gain concentrates on these pivotal queries, where it is large (+10.4 to +23.3 percentage points across three headline configurations), and is exactly zero elsewhere. We confirm the pattern across three code benchmarks and four panel sizes (a 9-judge extension and 56 dependent subsampling checks, gain +6.5 to +16.1 percentage points). On HumanEval+/MBPP+, a majority-side replacement rule raises overall accuracy from 82.44% to 85.62% while invoking the signal on 16.2% of queries; signal-only remains stronger at 87.60%. Thus population-level dependence diagnostics and margin-stratified utility are complementary, and the affected-set characterization yields a call-reduction rule for any specified single-ballot substitution policy.