Are Diversity Metrics Measuring Diversity? A Capability-Controlled Audit of Majority-Vote Gain in LLM Ensembles

Majority voting over LLMs is widely assumed to benefit from diversity, and diversity measures are used to choose which models to combine.

We ask whether five such measures track diversity or mainly re-express capability, auditing them as predictors of majority-vote gain over the best member across 31,900 subsets of 30 LLMs on MMLU-Pro (29 on TruthfulQA) under explicit capability controls.

Three findings emerge.

First, latent complementarity is ubiquitous: oracle gain is positive in 100% of subsets, yet simple voting beats the strongest member in only 9.98% of all canonical size-3 subsets (18.71% with held-out best selection); the pooled size-2-4 rate is 1.27%, partly reflecting deterministic even-size voting behavior.

Second, a joint-correctness proxy (strict diversity) is nearly collinear with one minus mean accuracy (size-3 Spearman rho = +0.991 / +0.988); raw diversity-gain associations are strongly capability-entangled and, with one exception, unstable under control.

Third, three linear contingency-table statistics are algebraically non-separable; after capability control, the empirically stable remainder is a modest residual pairwise co-failure association in which more shared error corresponds to lower gain.

This direction is robust, but its magnitude is configuration-dependent.

Joint rawspace linear regressions treating strict diversity, disagreement, and double-fault as independent predictors are rank-deficient by construction.