Which LLM for Which Work? Budgeted Model Allocation under Uncertain Evaluation
Mirrored from arXiv — Machine Learning for archival readability. Support the source by reading on the original site.
Computer Science > Machine Learning
Title:Which LLM for Which Work? Budgeted Model Allocation under Uncertain Evaluation
Abstract:A company with a fixed artificial intelligence (AI) budget must decide which large language model (LLM) handles each recurring workload. What it lacks is the quality table, how well each model performs on each workload. Given that table, the decision is a multiple-choice knapsack problem and is routine to solve, so estimating it is the difficulty, and that estimation fails in two ways. Models are rarely compared on the same work, and the recorded score is usually a proxy rather than the outcome the company values. Causal and off-policy methods repair the first but condition on the second, while evaluator-validation methods estimate the second but stop short of the decision. Worse, buying more re-evaluation cannot settle the second: randomization governs which requests are scored, not how a score is produced, so the table stays uncertain however much evaluation is purchased. Yet the deployment decision may still be determined even when the table is not. We therefore ask whether one assignment stays optimal across every quality table consistent with the evidence. For the fixed-budget problem, this admits an exact two-solve certificate: solve once at the estimated table and once at a least-favourable table. Agreement certifies the assignment; disagreement identifies the model-workload pairs where further evidence can matter. We propose CASE (causal active sequential experimentation), which targets evaluation to those pairs and repeats the test as evidence accumulates. On a production log, the measurement failure is the larger of the two: correcting assignment exactly still leaves most of the loss, and randomized re-evaluation does not remove it. In our experiments, the available evidence often does not determine the assignment. On paid software tasks, better information about model quality yields more savings than further optimization of the assignment on the same estimates.
| Subjects: | Machine Learning (cs.LG); Optimization and Control (math.OC); Machine Learning (stat.ML) |
| Cite as: | arXiv:2608.29560 [cs.LG] |
| (or arXiv:2608.29560v1 [cs.LG] for this version) | |
| https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.29560
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
|
Access Paper:
- View PDF
- HTML (experimental)
- TeX Source
Current browse context:
References & Citations
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article
Demos
Recommenders and Search Tools
arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
More from arXiv — Machine Learning
-
M3-Former: Multimodal Transformer with Mixture-of-Experts for Long-Term Vessel Trajectory Prediction
Sep 11
-
Halo: Improving forecast accuracy through heteroscedastic estimation
Sep 11
-
Zero-shot rib design: merging training-free generative prior with topology optimization
Sep 11
-
Byzantine-Robust Federated Fire Detection with a Rotating Coordinator
Sep 11
Discussion (0)
Sign in to join the discussion. Free account, 30 seconds — email code or GitHub.
Sign in →No comments yet. Sign in and be the first to say something.