When is a better LLM worth paying for? Stochastic Optimization with Switching Mixed-Fidelity Oracles

Large language models can translate business descriptions into optimization models, but executable code may misrepresent constraints or objectives. A solver can then return an optimal solution to the wrong problem. Even when the solution satisfies the intended operating rules, a better plan may exist. For organizations that repeatedly use optimization modeling, an LLM-based framework should produce accurate formulations at low cost and, ideally, run locally. We study how to verify improvements and allocate attempts across LLMs that differ in price and capability. We develop OSCAR (Optimization modeling by Simulator, Coder, And Reviewer), which uses an offline Simulator certified against labeled decision examples to compare candidates and continues searching beyond feasibility. We model the search for the next certified improvement as sequential decisions under unobserved difficulty: which LLMs to call and when to stop. In a simplified known-prior setting, we give conditions under which cost-ordered escalation is optimal. For general menus, we derive a prior-free competitive guarantee. On five benchmark problems, OSCAR achieves 95% to 100% accuracy at the reported settings using two small open-weight LLMs, each deployable locally on a single GPU. Their single-attempt accuracies average 29% and 48%. In five runs per problem, Codex and Claude Code incur average token costs 3.1 and 5.8 times OSCAR's, respectively. OSCAR supports open-weight models locally or in the cloud, depending on budget and confidentiality requirements. Firms should maintain labeled decision examples of feasible and infeasible decisions to clarify plain-language operating rules. OSCAR follows these labels when an LLM's interpretation conflicts with them. As LLM capabilities and prices change, OSCAR's simple operating rules and adjustable settings help firms adapt their model choices and benefit from these advances.

Inspired by the problem of identifying the best model from a collection of large language models (LLMs) with heterogeneous querying costs, we formulate and analyse a variant of the multi-armed bandit (MAB) with (i) dueling feedback, where pairwise comparisons between model responses provide robust preference signals, and (ii) heterogeneous sampling costs, reflecting the differing costs of querying different LLMs. Assuming the existence of a Condorcet winner, a condition we empirically validate across multiple real-world datasets, we propose a Track-and-Stop style algorithm for best-arm identification with prescribed confidence. We prove that the algorithm almost surely achieves the asymptotically optimal cost as the error tends to zero. Finally, we extensively evaluate our approach on both synthetic and real-world instances, demonstrating consistent improvements over classical cost-unaware algorithms and their cost-aware extensions.

LLM-as-a-judge has emerged as a cornerstone technique for evaluating large language models by leveraging LLM reasoning to score prompt-response pairs. Since LLM judgments are stochastic, practitioners commonly query each pair multiple times to estimate mean scores accurately. This raises a critical challenge: given a fixed computational budget $B$, how to optimally allocate queries across $K$ prompt-response pairs to minimize estimation error? We present a principled variance-adaptive approach leveraging multi-armed bandit theory and concentration inequalities. Our method dynamically allocates queries based on estimated score variances, concentrating resources where uncertainty is highest. Further, our algorithm is shown to achieve a worst-case score-estimation error of $\tilde{O}\left(\sqrt{\frac{\sum_{i=1}^K σ_i^2}{B}}\right)$, $σ_i^2$ being the unknown score variance for pair $i \in [K]$ with near-optimal budget allocation. Experiments on Summarize-From-Feedback and HelpSteer2 demonstrate that our method significantly outperforms uniform allocation, reducing worst-case estimation error while maintaining identical budgets. Our work establishes a theoretical foundation for efficient LLM evaluation with practical implications for AI safety, model alignment, and automated assessment at scale.