Dynamically Allocating Evaluation Effort for Model Ranking

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.

Large Language Models are typically benchmarked by evaluating every model on every test query. For practitioners seeking the best model to deploy, this is often wasteful: if a model clearly performs worse than others, there is no need to precisely estimate its performance. Best-arm identification algorithms can be naturally applied to drastically reduce costs by adaptively allocating evaluation budget. Further, language models often respond similarly to the same prompt-a property previous work has tried to leverage with mixed success. We propose Synchronized Successive Rejects (SySRs), augmenting the classical Successive Rejects algorithm with paired comparisons. Unlike prior attempts to leverage model similarity in best-model identification, our approach is hyperparameter-free and enjoys performance guarantees that improve with the degree of similarity between evaluated models. Empirically, our method outperforms all baselines in terms of average error rate across 15 standard benchmarks, and in terms of worst-case budget for reliably identifying the best model.

Standard evaluation of large language models assumes stable model rankings across inference conditions. We challenge this assumption by varying the token generation budget, i.e., the maximum tokens a model may produce, across seven levels (64--4,096), evaluating four models on three reasoning benchmarks (56,476 inferences). We report four findings: (i) 3--19% of items exhibit non-monotone behavior (accuracy decreasing with more budget), even after controlling for truncation, and this phenomenon is model-specific (cross-model overlap: 6--14%). (ii) Model rankings reverse across budgets on all benchmarks ($p {<} 0.01$, McNemar). (iii) Oracle analysis reveals model complementarity up to $+27.8$pp, most pronounced at constrained budgets. (iv) A budget-aware router captures 14.1% of the oracle gap cross-domain; budget features help within-domain ($+1.6$ to $+5.7$pp) but are domain-specific and hurt transfer ($-1.2$pp). These results argue for budget-conditioned evaluation protocols.