Combining many LLMs yields limited upside: ensemble accuracy is capped by the rate at which every model fails, and across 67 models observed co-failure rates are 2–3 times larger than common Gaussian-copula models predict. As a result, simple voting or mixture strategies seldom beat the best individual model unless a reliable per-query router is available.

Main Finding

For any policy whose output is always one of the member models’ answers (routers, majority votes, cascades, many MoA variants), accuracy cannot exceed 1 − β, where β is the probability that every model in the pool is wrong on the same query. The commonly-reported pairwise error correlation ρ cannot identify β, and pairwise-based Gaussian-copula or single-factor models systematically underprice the all-wrong tail on large heterogeneous pools. A Clopper–Pearson lower bound on β from a held-out graded query set gives a pre-deployment $0 certificate on the maximum any such policy could gain over the single-best model.

Key Points

• Ceiling identity (Prop. 1): any selection policy whose answer is drawn from the members has accuracy ≤ 1 − β. Oracle (per-query) attains the ceiling; the oracle gain over the single-best equals Pr[single-best wrong] − β. The all-wrong tail β contributes nothing to the realizable oracle gain.
• Finite-sample certificate: from n queries with K all-wrong, the Clopper–Pearson lower bound β_lo gives a high-confidence upper bound on any policy’s accuracy; if (1 − β_lo) − single-best ≤ orchestration overhead, no policy in the class can pay for itself.
• Pairwise ρ is insufficient (Prop. 2–3): there exist error distributions with identical marginals and identical pairwise correlations but different β. Under a common-mode atom or strong tail dependence, single-factor (or pairwise-calibrated) copulas underpredict β; the bias worsens with pool size.
• Calibration matters: use tetrachoric (latent) correlations, not Pearson of 0/1 indicators, when mapping observed pairwise statistics to latent probit/Gaussian-copula parameters. Using naive Pearson-of-indicators can produce huge, spurious underestimates of β.
• Market-scale empirical result (67 models, 21 families): on open-ended math (MATH-500; n=330), observed β = 0.052 (k=17 all-wrong; CP 95% [0.030,0.081]). A correctly tetrachoric-calibrated single-factor model predicts β_sf ≈ 0.021, so the empirical tail is ≈2.5× fatter (bootstrap 90% CI ~1.7–3.4×). Fitting the full 67×67 tetrachoric matrix into a Gaussian copula still underpredicts (β_full ≈ 0.023), consistent with a residual common-mode atom.
• Pool-size effect: the underpricing/residual grows with pool size (ratio rises from ~1 at k=2 to median ≈2.5 at k=67), suggesting adding more correlated models of similar failure modes increases the unseen co-failure risk.
• Two regimes across tasks:
  • Ceiling-bound (open-ended math): β>0 caps every policy; gains limited because frontier models tend to fail together.
  • Realizability-bound (science/other tasks): β≈0 so the ceiling is open; the limiting factor becomes the router’s ability to resolve disagreement.
• Empirical router performance: learned routers captured almost none of the oracle gain. In the 15-model saturated mix, a held-out TF-IDF+domain logistic captured ~9% of G (CI spans 0); stronger routers, a gradient-boosted correctness predictor, and an LLM-as-router captured none or actively hurt. In practice the prompt carries little signal to pick the uniquely-correct model when frontier models disagree.
• Combining models: at matched quality, a diverse low-ρ ensemble beats a high-ρ Self-MoA. Gains come from models that fail on different questions, not from merely adding model copies or same-vendor variants.
• Task-format sensitivity: turning GPQA-Diamond questions from multiple-choice to free-response increased β (e.g., β=0.127 with LLM judging), suggesting co-failure is task-format dependent.

Data & Methods

• Pools:
  • Pillar experiments on a 15-model pool (frontier → cheap mix) across benchmarks (GSM8K, MMLU, ARC-Challenge, MATH-500, MMLU-Pro).
  • Market-scale measurement: 67 models from 21 families (GPT-5.5, Claude Opus 4.8, Gemini 3.1 Pro, Grok-4.3, Qwen3.7-Max, DeepSeek V4, Kimi K2.7, GLM-5.2, etc.) on hard benchmarks including MATH-500, MATH-Hard, and GPQA-Diamond.
• Grading: programmatic, execution-graded or exact-match where possible (no LLM judges for core math/code benchmarks). Clopper–Pearson intervals used for β confidence intervals due to small counts of all-wrong events.
• Correlation calibration:
  • Tetrachoric correlations estimated (latent probit transform) to calibrate single-factor and full-matrix Gaussian copula fits.
  • Also tested exchangeable Clayton copula and full Σ-Gaussian copula (nearest PSD projection where needed).
  • Monte Carlo integration to estimate co-failure probabilities under fitted copulas.
• Cost accounting: per-call metered costs via OpenRouter; reported experiment inference costs ~ $270 (itemized in Appendix).
• Robustness checks: pool-composition resampling (random k-model subsets) to isolate pool-size effects; domain and task-format replications (MATH-500, MATH-Hard, execution-graded code, GPQA free-response).

Implications for AI Economics

• Pre-deployment decision rule: compute a Clopper–Pearson lower bound β_lo from a held-out graded sample and compare (1 − β_lo) to the single-best model’s accuracy and orchestration overhead. If (1 − β_lo) − single-best ≤ overhead, do not invest in routing/voting/MoA that only outputs member answers.
• Measurement practice: stop relying on naive pairwise ρ (Pearson on 0/1). Estimate tetrachoric correlations and report Clopper–Pearson intervals for β. Recognize that pairwise statistics cannot reveal common-mode all-wrong mass.
• Allocation and procurement:
  • Buying many similar/highly-correlated frontier models yields diminishing/misleading diversity benefits because a common-mode failure atom can dominate the extreme tail—more models can increase the mismatch between pairwise metrics and actual co-failure risk.
  • At matched quality, diversify across genuinely different failure modes (lower true β) rather than buying multiple high-ρ variants (Self-MoA).
  • Market makers and buyers should price orchestration value using β-aware certificates; a small certified ceiling implies little value for routing investment.
• Product and routing design:
  • Effort may be better spent on signals that reduce resolvable disagreement (e.g., verifiers that change the answer set, non-member fusion that synthesizes new answers, or stronger verifiers that reduce single-best-wrong mass), rather than investing in per-query routing when β is the binding constraint.
  • For cascades and cost-aware orchestration, include the shadow price λB and the budget-constrained assignment framing to decide per-query escalation; the paper’s appendix formalizes these economic boundaries.
• Evaluation and risk management:
  • For high-stakes applications, monitoring β (and its CI) is crucial for operational risk assessment: the all-wrong tail is where catastrophic agreement on wrong answers can occur.
  • Because β is data- and task-format-dependent, test suites must reflect production query formats (free-form vs MCQ) — task-format changes can reopen tails that multiple-choice hides.
• Research and marketplace recommendations:
  • Encourage benchmarks and leaderboards to publish co-failure statistics (β and its CI) and tetrachoric-calibrated correlation matrices, not just accuracies and pairwise ρ.
  • Investment in methods that produce answers not restricted to member outputs (answer fusion, verification that can change answers, external retrieval/solver integration) can escape the 1 − β ceiling.
  • When assembling large pools, buyers should simulate co-failure using full-matrix calibration and consider common-mode shocks (data-distribution blind spots) that pairwise metrics cannot detect.

Caveats and limits - β is estimated from few all-wrong events in many domains; Clopper–Pearson intervals can be wide. The certificate is conservative but informative. - Results are strongest on checked-answer tasks (math, execution-graded code); domains with subjective grading or no programmatic check require careful judge design. - The paper does not produce a new routing algorithm; it gives diagnostic and measurement tools and shows market-scale limits on existing selection policies.