arXiv AI By Dmitrij \.Zatuchin

A Shared Taste for Model-Written Text: The Generator-by-Selector Matrices of "AI-AI Bias" Show No Detectable Own-Model Premium

Read the original on arXiv AI →

Laurito et al. (PNAS 2025) found that large language models prefer model‑written descriptions over human‑written ones. In this study, the authors reconstructed the 5×5 generator‑by‑selector matrices from the original data and tested for an “own‑model premium” using a two‑way fixed‑effects model and permutation tests. The results show no statistically significant preference for a selector’s own model across products, paper abstracts, or films, with effect sizes near zero and confidence intervals that rule out a premium larger than about 0.04 share points.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

arXiv AI
Aug 20

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

The paper introduces a pluralistic agreement index, Gamma, to quantify how often wrong runs of large language models (LLMs) agree with the majority consensus. By decomposing Gamma into a mechanical component and a preference‑unexplained residual, the authors show that on GPT‑4.1 the mechanical part explains most of the agreement on multiple‑choice benchmarks but only about half on open‑domain tasks, revealing a residual bias that can cause self‑consistency to backfire on hard questions. The study provides a quantitative framework for understanding when majority voting over LLM samples improves or harms accuracy, without proposing new voting methods.

By Lizhuo Zhang, Mengmeng Tang, Chenfeng Long, Xiaoyong Tang, Xiang Luo
arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 24

Feed the Panel Dimensions, Not Verdicts: Rubric-Decomposed Fusion of Vision-Language Aesthetic Judges

The paper investigates whether panels of vision‑language models (VLMs) can reliably judge image aesthetics. It shows that a panel of holistic judges rarely outperforms its best member, but when each model scores images on five rubric‑defined dimensions and these dimension scores are fused across model families, the panel consistently beats the best single VLM on two datasets (EVA and PARA). The study demonstrates that the value of a panel depends on the type of input it receives, and that dimension‑based fusion yields measurable gains at the cost of additional labeling and API usage.

By Amit Jadhav, Shaurya Beriwala, Beomjin Kim