SOURCE-LINKED INTELLIGENCE

Agreement Overstates Evidence: Error Dependence in LLM Judge Consensus

arXiv · AI, language, vision and robotics · article · Sep 18, 2026 · UTC

Consensus among LLM judges is often taken as strong evidence that a decision is correct. This assumes that judges make their errors independently. In practice, LLM judges are often trained and evaluated in similar ways, so they can make the same mistakes. We study how this dependency affects the reliability of consensus. We find substantial error correlation across both open-weight and frontier LLM judges. In our main bank of ten judges, the average pairwise correlation between judge errors is 0.21. As a result, the ten judges only provide roughly as much statistical information as 3.5 indepen

Read original source ↗ Open in workspace

recordType

paper

region

Global