arXiv — NLP / Computation & Language · · 4 min read

Decomposing Wrong-Consensus Agreement in LLM Self-Consistency: A GPT-4.1 Case Study

Mirrored from arXiv — NLP / Computation & Language for archival readability. Support the source by reading on the original site.

Computer Science > Computation and Language

arXiv:2608.18795 (cs)
[Submitted on 19 Aug 2026]

Title:Decomposing Wrong-Consensus Agreement in LLM Self-Consistency: A GPT-4.1 Case Study

View a PDF of the paper titled Decomposing Wrong-Consensus Agreement in LLM Self-Consistency: A GPT-4.1 Case Study, by Lizhuo Zhang and 4 other authors
View PDF HTML (experimental)
Abstract:Majority voting over multiple LLM samples is widely used to raise answer accuracy, yet its gain varies erratically: on hard questions it can even backfire. This paper gives a quantitative account of this failure. A pluralistic agreement index Gamma is defined as the expected fraction of the samples of a wrong run that agree with the consensus, normalized by a reference scale d=(1-p)/(C-1), and is decomposed into a mechanical component (what a vote delivers given only a per-case answer preference) and a preference-unexplained residual. The mechanical null is difficulty-matched and leak-free: each case is resimulated at its own accuracy and option preference, estimated from the case's other runs, so no run predicts its own agreement. On GPT-4.1 the decomposition shows benchmark-associated direction (an observational ordering over n=4 cells per benchmark, not a significance claim). On multiple-choice GPQA-Diamond, the per-case answer preference explains 81-93% of the held-out test-run agreement index: the shared-bias-dominates account over-claims here, because a wrong but attractive option the whole cohort latches onto is captured by the per-case preference channel (whether that preference is induced by shared training bias is not identified). On open-domain AIME, the mechanical preference explains only 59-78% (21-29% if shrunk to pure noise), and a preference-unexplained residual of 1.56-2.80 Gamma units survives, which a run-level preference-heterogeneity reference more than absorbs (1.4-2.1). A self-consistency backfire on hard questions is reproduced (binned voting gap down to -0.09, coupled CI [-0.12,-0.07]), and the highest-agreement bin reaches an accuracy of only 0.42-0.83, a 1.2-3.6x lift over base rate: agreement is graded evidence, not certification. No new voting method is proposed; code and evidence are committed and reproducible.
Comments: 18 pages, 2 figures, 9 tables; quantitative kappa-decomposition of agreement saturation in self-consistency;
Subjects: Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
ACM classes: I.2.7; I.2.6; G.3
Cite as: arXiv:2608.18795 [cs.CL]
  (or arXiv:2608.18795v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
  https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.18795
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

Submission history

From: Lizhuo Zhang [view email]
[v1] Wed, 19 Aug 2026 10:50:15 UTC (1,442 KB)
Full-text links:

Access Paper:

    View a PDF of the paper titled Decomposing Wrong-Consensus Agreement in LLM Self-Consistency: A GPT-4.1 Case Study, by Lizhuo Zhang and 4 other authors
  • View PDF
  • HTML (experimental)
  • TeX Source

Current browse context:

cs.CL
< prev   |   next >
Change to browse by:

References & Citations

Loading...

BibTeX formatted citation

loading...
Data provided by:

Bookmark

BibSonomy Reddit
Bibliographic Tools

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer Toggle
Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers Toggle
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps Toggle
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite.ai Toggle
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)
Code, Data, Media

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv Toggle
alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)
Links to Code Toggle
CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)
DagsHub Toggle
DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)
GotitPub Toggle
Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)
Huggingface Toggle
Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)
ScienceCast Toggle
ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)
Demos

Demos

Replicate Toggle
Replicate (What is Replicate?)
Spaces Toggle
Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)
Spaces Toggle
TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)
Related Papers

Recommenders and Search Tools

Link to Influence Flower
Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)
Core recommender toggle
CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)
About arXivLabs

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

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.

Discussion (0)

Sign in to join the discussion. Free account, 30 seconds — email code or GitHub.

Sign in →

No comments yet. Sign in and be the first to say something.

More from arXiv — NLP / Computation & Language