With the rapid progress of multi-agent large language model (LLM) reasoning, how to effectively aggregate answers from multiple LLMs has emerged as a fundamental challenge. Standard majority voting treats all answers equally, failing to consider latent heterogeneity and correlation across models. In this work, we design two new aggregation algorithms called Optimal Weight (OW) and Inverse Surprising Popularity (ISP), leveraging both first-order and second-order information. Our theoretical analysis shows these methods provably mitigate inherent limitations of majority voting under mild assumptions, leading to more reliable collective decisions. We empirically validate our algorithms on synthetic datasets, popular LLM fine-tuning benchmarks such as UltraFeedback and MMLU, and a real-world healthcare setting ARMMAN. Our algorithms consistently outperform standard baselines, establishing a robust, training-free framework for effective multi-agent LLM aggregation.