When LLMs Agree, Are They Right? Auditing Self-Consistency and Cross-Model Agreement as Confidence Signals

Abstract: LLM-as-judge (Zheng et al., 2023) is increasingly the default for evaluating AI systems in enterprise pipelines, often scaled to ensembles (Verga et al., 2024) or "mixture-of-experts" (Shazeer et al., 2017) panels of judges. These systems share a key assumption: that consistency -- agreement among judges, or among a model's own samples -- indicates correctness. We show this assumption is unreliable. Agreement is not accuracy: a model can agree with itself, and different models can agree with each other, out of shared bias, a memorized heuristic, or an option-position prior rather than truth. We ask when agreement is nonetheless a usable proxy, in a large-scale cross-runner study: 53 runners drew K=50 samples for assigned overlapping cases across comparisons of model tier, prompting, and scale on GPQA Diamond and AIME -- 265,000 samples. Using majority-correctness as the deployment label and a hierarchical runner-clustered bootstrap, agreement is a positive but weak predictor (rho 0.20-0.59, all positive under item-clustered resampling) whose usefulness is regime-dependent: best for unsaturated mid-tier models and for allocating compute, and worst -- over-confident yet no more accurate -- for the most consistent frontier model (agreement >=0.8 on 77% of GPQA case-result entries, 48% of those wrong). An exploratory cross-family check on three Claude tiers shows the same frontier over-confidence, with confident errors recurring across providers above a marginal-preserving null. Self-consistency is thus a conditional proxy for correctness, not a standalone confidence score. We publicly release the de-identified per-run rows and answer distributions.
Submission history
Access Paper:

Current browse context:
References & Citations
BibTeX formatted citation


arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs .
Verified source · arXiv.org
Reported by arXiv.org. Open the original for full media and formatting.
More in Research
All newsCompete Then Collaborate: Frontier AI Teachers Build a Verifiable Curriculum to Improve a Coding Student Beyond Imitation
arXiv:2607.08255v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models increasingly serve as teachers generating training data for smaller students. Prior multi-teacher knowledge distillation methods merge outputs without determining which frontier model teaches best, often relyi…
Read at arXiv cs.AIBlind-Spots-Bench: Evaluating Blind Spots in Multimodal Models
arXiv:2607.08317v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Modern AI models achieve strong performance on many established benchmarks, yet they still fail on tasks that humans find almost trivial, such as manipulating a string or drawing a dog with five legs. These examples suggest that ex…
Read at arXiv cs.AIOverthinking: Amplifying Reasoning Weights to Extract Learned Secrets
arXiv:2607.08173v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Black box auditing of language models is an essential pre-deployment tool, but it may miss subtle forms of misalignment and hidden information. To better elicit hidden information during an auditing process, we introduce \emph{over…
Read at arXiv cs.AICommuniWave:A Machine Learning Model for Quantifying the Degree of Temporary Informal Behavior in Urban Communities
arXiv:2607.08554v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: For urban managers and designers, improving the functional attributes of urban communities to enhance territorial resilience in the face of complexity and uncertainty is crucial. Currently, community planning often follows a top-do…
Read at arXiv cs.AI