# When Does a Second Model Help? Cross-Model Review in LLM Verification

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.01471 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.01471/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 25 of its 36 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 1 Oct 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 25 of 25)

- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [Improving Factuality and Reasoning in Language Models through Multiagent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14325/) (2023)
- [FEVER: a large-scale dataset for Fact Extraction and VERification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1803.05355/) (2018)
- [Chatbot Arena: An Open Platform for Evaluating LLMs by Human Preference](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.04132/) (2024)
- [Large Language Models are not Fair Evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.17926/) (2023)
- [Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.13548/) (2023)
- [Large Language Models Cannot Self-Correct Reasoning Yet](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.01798/) (2023)
- [Encouraging Divergent Thinking in Large Language Models through Multi-Agent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.19118/) (2023)
- [ChatDev: Communicative Agents for Software Development](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.07924/) (2023)
- [LLM Evaluators Recognize and Favor Their Own Generations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.13076/) (2024)
- [LLMs-as-Judges: A Comprehensive Survey on LLM-based Evaluation Methods](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.05579/) (2024)
- [Prometheus 2: An Open Source Language Model Specialized in Evaluating Other Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.01535/) (2024)
- [Mixture-of-Agents Enhances Large Language Model Capabilities](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.04692/) (2024)
- [When Can LLMs Actually Correct Their Own Mistakes? A Critical Survey of Self-Correction of LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.01297/) (2024)
- [CUAD: An Expert-Annotated NLP Dataset for Legal Contract Review](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.06268/) (2021)
- [AVeriTeC: A Dataset for Real-world Claim Verification with Evidence from the Web](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.13117/) (2023)
- [Automating Code Review Activities by Large-Scale Pre-training](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.09095/) (2022)
- [Evaluating LLMs at Detecting Errors in LLM Responses](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.03602/) (2024)
- [LLM-TOPLA: Efficient LLM Ensemble by Maximising Diversity](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.03953/) (2024)
- [Finding Blind Spots in Evaluator LLMs with Interpretable Checklists](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.13439/) (2024)
- [Mind the Blind Spots: A Focus-Level Evaluation Framework for LLM Reviews](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.17086/) (2025)
- [Fine-Tuning and Prompt Engineering for Large Language Models-based Code Review Automation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.00905/) (2024)
- [Cross-Context Review: Improving LLM Output Quality by Separating Production and Review Sessions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.12123/) (2026)
- [More Rounds, More Noise: Why Multi-Turn Review Fails to Improve Cross-Context Verification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.16244/) (2026)
- [Cross-Context Verification: Hierarchical Detection of Benchmark Contamination through Session-Isolated Analysis](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.21454/) (2026)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Cross-Provider Review as a Runtime Contract for Coding Agents: A Controlled Pilot and Fault-Injection Study](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.10961/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models now generate code, documentation, and analyses, and are increasingly used to review such output. We ask when a second review by a different model helps. Building on the author's earlier preprints, which varied context, repetition, and role structure within one model, we test model independence in a controlled experiment: 30 artifacts with 150 planted errors, 10 review conditions, and 900 review sessions with three reviewer models from two developers. In this experiment, (1) a top-tier cross-model reviewer is not significantly different in F1 from same-model review in a fresh session (CCR), which does not establish equivalence; (2) the two find partly different errors (Jaccard 41.2%); and (3) at two review calls, one CCR plus one cross-model review matches more planted errors than two CCR reviews (56.7% vs. 42.7%; Holm-adjusted p=.006), but not significantly more than two reviews by the top-tier cross-model reviewer, so model difference and reviewer capability are not separated. A lightweight cross-model reviewer scores no higher than same-model review. Withholding requirements from the reviewer raises F1 for the two lower tiers but not the top tier, in untested point estimates whose pattern depends on how failed sessions are scored. Before analysis we audited all session records, excluding one baseline run of uncertain provenance and 14 failed calls; results with all sessions are also reported. A partial check on public detector outputs from another benchmark neither replicates nor contradicts the main comparison. Records, artifacts, and scripts are available from the author on request.