Stop Guessing When to Stop Testing: Efficient Model Evaluation with Just Enough Data

We study the problem of sequentially evaluating a new large language model (LLM) on a fixed question set using historical performance data from prior LLMs. Our goal is to construct a confidence sequence (CS) for the model's capability on this question set and to design active querying rules that shrink the CS width as quickly as possible. For CS construction, we invert a family of test supermartingales and focus on two representative approaches: a reverse information projection (RIPr)-based approach and a testing-by-betting-based approach. We first study these approaches under an oracle setting, and demonstrate the oracle optimality of the RIPr-based construction. We then propose a growth-oriented querying rule that aims to maximize the worst-case one-step expected log-increment over the endpoints of the current CS. In practice, we build these test supermartingales and the querying rule on predictions of question-level correctness learned from historical data. We then analyze the shrinkage behavior of the resulting CSs and identify two key factors that slow the shrinkage rate of CSs: accumulated prediction mismatch and the spikiness of the querying distribution. Finally, motivated by this analysis, we propose several mixture querying rules that combine growth-oriented querying, prediction refinement, and uniform exploration, trying to mitigate the effects that slow the shrinkage rate. We provide experiments comparing different querying rules for the RIPr-based and testing-by-betting-based CSs across several synthetic testing datasets. Interestingly, we observe that the simplest querying rule, uniform sampling, can sometimes outperform more adaptive querying rules for both methods.

Selecting the best large language model (LLM) for a fixed benchmark is often expensive, since exhaustive evaluation requires running every model on every example. Multi-armed bandit (MAB) algorithms can reduce the number of LLM calls by sequentially selecting the next model-example pair to evaluate, thereby avoiding wasted evaluations on clearly underperforming models. Further savings can be achieved by predicting model scores from the partially observed model-example score matrix using low-rank factorization. However, such predictions are not ground truth: they can be biased and may therefore lead to incorrect identification of the best model. In this work, we propose a principled framework that combines MAB with cheap predicted scores without compromising statistical validity. Specifically, we derive doubly robust estimators of each model's performance that use the low-rank predictions to reduce variance. This enables the construction of valid finite-sample confidence intervals in our setting, where models are selected adaptively and examples are sampled without replacement. Empirical results on real-world benchmarks show that our approach reduces the number of required evaluations, yielding meaningful savings in compute and cost while accurately identifying the best-performing model.

While human evaluation is the gold standard in many NLP tasks, it suffers from prohibitive costs and poor scalability. When identifying top-performing models, typical evaluation protocols waste effort by exhaustively evaluating all models on the entire benchmark, a safe but inefficient approach. In this work, we formalize multi-model human evaluation as a best-arm identification problem in a multi-armed bandit setup with correlated arms, where pulling an arm corresponds to human-evaluating a model. By sampling adaptively based on the intermediate model rankings obtained on the samples so far, we can focus the annotation budget on the most competitive models. We prove the optimality of the proposed algorithms and show that it improves discrimination between top-performing models. This makes evaluations faster, cheaper and more aligned with large-scale competition evaluation goals.