With the widespread adoption of pre-trained Large Language Models (LLM), there exists a high demand for task-specific test sets to benchmark their performance in domains such as healthcare and biomedicine. However, the cost of labeling test samples while developing new benchmarks poses a significant challenge, especially when expert annotators are required. Existing frameworks for active sample selection offer limited support for generative Question Answering tasks, where option dynamics can affect model decision boundaries. In this paper, we present Generative Active Testing (GAT), an uncertainty-aware acquisition framework leveraging LLMs as surrogates for informing the sample selection process. Using a novel Statement Adaptation Module, we modify generative tasks into a pseudo-classification format, enabling the capture of sample-level uncertainties across unlabeled candidates. Our zero-shot acquisition functions reduce estimation error by ~40% compared to traditional sampling baselines, offering a scalable solution for cost-effective model benchmarking.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: An overview of the components of the Generative Active Testing Framework.
Figure 2: Step-wise flow diagram detailing tasks performed by the Statement Adaptation Module.
Δ Conditional AU-ROC (Conf ≥0.7 )
Strategy
PubMedQA
MedQA
AI2_ARC
MostConf
+3.9%
-6.1%
-49.3%
LeastConf
-49.9%
+25.6%
+11.0%
RunnerUp
+2.1%
+4.9%
+3.3%
Subset Size ( N )
352 (70%)
394 (31%)
363 (59%)
Table 1: Ablation of Option Selection Strategies. Values represent the change ( Δ ) in Conditional AUROC (Conf ≥0.7 ), with the RunnerUp strategy showing consistent, robust improvements across all datasets.
Metric
PubMedQA
MedQA
AI2_ARC
Accuracy (QA)
0.74
0.59
0.80
Accuracy (Stmt)
0.77
0.64
0.74
Entropy σ (QA)
0.25
0.41
0.41
Entropy σ (Stmt)
0.16
0.12
0.09
Cond. AUROC (QA)
0.693
0.687
0.769
Cond. AUROC (Stmt)
0.707
0.721
0.794
Table 2: Impact of RunnerUp Statement Adaptation. Compared to the QA task, the statement adapted task has a lower spread of entropy σ values.
Figure 3: Variance and Average Estimation Error. Results across acquisition runs on the PubMedQA dataset. Experimental settings: Fmain=Llama 3.1 8B , Fsurrogate=NLIVerifier , and Foracle=RunnerUp .
Acquisition Function
AGNews Fmain= Llama 3.1 8B
AGNews Fmain= BARTClassifier
RandomAcq
0.00095
0.00031
SelfEntropyAcq
0.00153
0.00037
UCBAcq
0.00044
0.00032
MultiLM_CEAcq
0.00096
0.00022
UniformLM_CEAcq
0.00066
0.00024
MultiLMUniform_CEAcq
0.00045
0.00032
Table 3: Estimation Error AUC ( ↓ ). Performance of acquisition functions on traditional text classification datasets such as AGNews.
Acquisition Function
PubMedQA
MedQA
AI2_ARC
Geo Mean AUC
RandomAcq
0.00339
0.00061
0.00058
0.00106
SelfEntropyAcq
0.01526
0.00055
0.00094
0.00199
LMClusterEntropyAcq
0.00531
0.00117
0.00049
0.00145
UCBAcq
0.01772
0.00099
0.00069
0.00230
MultiLM_CEAcq
0.00425
0.00051
0.00126
0.00140
UniformLM_CEAcq
0.00160
0.00041
0.00039
0.00064
Table 4: Estimation Error AUC ( ↓ ). Performance of acquisition functions, where the geometric mean highlights robustness across multiple datasets. Experimental settings: Fmain=Llama 3.1 8B , Fsurrogate=NLIVerifier , and Foracle=RunnerUp .
Appendix figures & tables9 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Acquisition Function
PubMedQA
MedQA
AI2_ARC
RandomAcquisition
0.00339
0.00061
0.00058
LMClusterAcquisition (Unbiased Estimator)
0.00531
0.00117
0.00049
LMClusterAcquisition (Biased Estimator)
0.00166
0.00084
0.00062
Appendix
Table 5: Estimation Error AUC ( ↓ ). Performance of different Cluster Acquisition functions. Experimental settings: Fmain=Llama 3.1 8B , Fsurrogate=NLIVerifier , and Foracle=LeastConf .
Metric
PubMedQA
MedQA
AI2_ARC
Accuracy (QA)
0.75
0.59
0.80
Accuracy (Stmt)
0.44
0.77
0.82
Entropy σ (QA)
0.25
0.41
0.41
Entropy σ (Stmt)
0.18
0.18
0.12
Cond. AUROC (QA)
0.693
0.687
0.769
Cond. AUROC (Stmt)
0.347
0.863
0.853
Appendix
Table 6: Impact of Least Confident Statement Adaptation. Unlike the RunnerUp strategy, picking the least confident option results in high variance. While it improves discrimination on MedQA and AI2_ARC, it causes a catastrophic collapse in performance on PubMedQA (AUROC 0.69 → 0.35), making it unreliable for general deployment.
Metric
PubMedQA
MedQA
AI2_ARC
Accuracy (QA)
0.75
0.59
0.80
Accuracy (Stmt)
0.69
0.60
0.43
Entropy σ (QA)
0.25
0.41
0.41
Entropy σ (Stmt)
0.23
0.10
0.07
Cond. AUROC (QA)
0.693
0.687
0.769
Cond. AUROC (Stmt)
0.720
0.645
0.390
Appendix
Table 7: Impact of Most Confident Statement Adaptation. Verifying the model’s top choice fails to consistently improve calibration. On AI2_ARC, the method suffers a severe collapse (AUROC 0.77 → 0.39), and accuracy drops significantly, confirming that this strategy is prone to confirming the model’s original errors.
Model
Model ID
Llama 3.1 8B
meta-llama/Meta-Llama-3-8B
NLI Verifier
soumyasanyal/nli-entailment-verifier-xxl
GPT-4o
gpt-4o-2024-07-01-preview (Azure OpenAI)
Appendix
Table 8: Overview of models evaluated for Active Testing. For open-source models, this table shows the model names in Huggingface.
Acquisition Function
PubMedQA
RandomAcq
0.01289
AccuracyAcq
0.03950
SelfEntropyAcq
0.06692
UCBAcq
0.02147
UniformLM_CrossEntropyAcq
0.02337
UniformLM_JSDAcq
0.03831
Appendix
Table 9: Estimation Error AUC ( ↓ ). Performance of acquisition functions without statement adaptation on the PubMedQA dataset. Experimental settings: Mmain=Llama 3.1 8B .
Large language models (LLMs) require reliable evaluation from pre-training to test-time scaling, making evaluation a recurring rather than one-off cost. As model scales grow and target tasks increasingly demand expert annotators, both the compute and labeling costs needed for each evaluation rise rapidly. Active testing aims to alleviate this bottleneck by approximating the evaluation result from a small but informative subset of the evaluation pool. However, existing approaches primarily target classification and break down on generative tasks. We introduce a novel active testing algorithm tailored to generative tasks. Our method leverages semantic entropy from surrogate models to stratify the evaluation pool and then conducts approximate Neyman allocation based on signals extracted from these surrogates. Across multiple language and multimodal benchmarks and a range of surrogate-target model pairs, our method significantly improves on baselines and closely tracks Oracle-Neyman, delivering up to 28% MSE reduction over Uniform Sampling and an average of 22.9% budget savings.
Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to process streaming data, with practitioners relying on benchmarks to select the best model even though these signals only approximate real performance. While oracle annotations can provide reliable feedback, they are often costly and difficult to obtain at scale. To address this challenge, we propose ONLINE LLM PICKER, the first framework for active model selection for LLMs in online settings. Given an arbitrary stream of queries and a limited annotation budget, ONLINE LLM PICKER selects the most informative prompts for annotation to identify the best LLM among candidate models. Across multiple tasks including 10 datasets, for over 130 language models, we show that ONLINE LLM PICKER saves annotation cost by up to 71.67% while reliably identifying the best or near-best model for the stream. We also show that using the returned model for sequential generation on unannotated prompts across the stream reduces regret by up to a factor of 2.51x, indicating that ONLINE LLM PICKER can identify the best or near-best model well before processing all streaming prompts.
Choosing a Large Language Model (LLM) for a given task requires comparing many strong candidates, yet standard evaluation relies on costly annotations over fixed evaluation sets. To address this challenge, we develop SELECT-LLM, the first framework for active model selection of LLMs. SELECT-LLM aims to find a small set of queries whose annotations are most informative for identifying the best LLM for a given task. To this end, we introduce a query selection rule based on expected information gain, computed from pairwise similarities between candidate model outputs. Because this rule only uses generated model responses, SELECT-LLM can be applied across candidate models without assumptions about their architecture or access to model weights. This makes it suitable for both open-weight and black-box LLMs. We evaluate SELECT-LLM across 23 datasets, 156 evaluated models, diverse task families, and multiple text evaluation metrics. Across all experiments, SELECT-LLM improves over the strongest baseline in every setting, with annotation cost reductions up to 81.8% for best model selection and up to 84.78% for near-best model selection.
Yavuz Durmazkeser, Patrik Okanovic, Andreas Kirsch +2