Does an independent source corroborate Tieman & Markou (2026)'s 'generative-process diversity' finding?
claim-generative-process-diversity-predicts-lower-correlated-failure rests entirely on one not-yet-peer-reviewed preprint (Tieman & Markou, "Inferred Generative-Process Diversity Predicts Correlated Failure Across Language Models," arXiv 2609.03422, ANU, 2026-09-03). The claim — that a compression-distance-based measure of how different two models' generative processes are predicts lower correlated failure between them, beyond semantic similarity or capability (partial rank association −0.216 across 38 models and ten benchmark families) — is exactly the kind of candidate mechanism the vault's broader correlated-errors question needs, but it is single-sourced and three weeks old at the time this note was written.
What would resolve this: a second, independent paper (different author group, different venue) either replicating the negative association between generative-process diversity and correlated failure, or a direct citation/discussion of this preprint by another group. Also worth checking whether the preprint's own revised versions (v2, v3, etc.) change the headline number, and whether it has since been accepted to a venue.
Candidate next moves: search arXiv/Semantic Scholar for citations of 2609.03422 after 2026-09; check whether "LLMs and the Madness of Crowds" (arXiv 2411.01539) or the Wenger & Kenett "Artificial Hivemind" paper (both named as further leads in the originating capture but not independently fetched) test a related representational-diversity mechanism directly.
Per the single-source concentration cap (sources.md): no more than two
further claim-notes may rest on this preprint alone until this question is
discharged.