Active Testing of Large Language Models via Approximate Neyman Allocation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.10075v2
• Date: Mon, 18 May 2026 18:16:57 GMT
• Title: Active Testing of Large Language Models via Approximate Neyman Allocation
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) require reliable evaluation from pre-training to test-time scaling.<n>As model scales grow and target tasks increasingly demand expert annotators, both the compute and labeling costs needed for each evaluation rise rapidly.<n>Active testing aims to alleviate this bottleneck by approximating the evaluation result from a small but informative subset of the evaluation pool.
• Score: 13.289493017939469
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: 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.

Related papers

• Dynamically Allocating Evaluation Effort for Model Ranking [60.00410111594536]
  We formalize multi-model human evaluation as a best-arm identification problem in a multi-armed bandit setup with correlated arms.<n>We show that it improves discrimination between top-performing models.<n>This makes evaluations faster, cheaper and more aligned with large-scale competition evaluation goals.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-04T10:33:04Z)
• CollabEval: Statistically Efficient Collaborative Model Evaluation via Matrix Completion [65.53153291902454]
  Collaborative Evaluation (CollabEval) is a simple, effective, and principled method for exploiting dependencies between historical runs of different models on the same tasks to improve statistical efficiency.<n>We build a low-rank approximation of the score matrix, and use the reconstructed values to guarantee unbiased estimates of the true evaluation metric mean.<n>We find that CollabEval substantially reduces the mean confidence interval size, and the mean squared error of the point estimate, compared to baseline methods at the same annotation budget.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-06T13:22:04Z)
• ProEval: Proactive Failure Discovery and Efficient Performance Estimation for Generative AI Evaluation [17.57025670370604]
  ProEval is a proactive evaluation framework that leverages transfer learning to efficiently estimate performance and identify failure cases.<n>It requires 8-65x fewer samples to achieve estimates within 1% of the ground truth, while simultaneously revealing more diverse failure cases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-25T01:33:57Z)
• Scales++: Compute Efficient Evaluation Subset Selection with Cognitive Scales Embeddings [23.9553588103042]
  We propose a item-centric approach to benchmark subset selection, arguing that selection should be based on the intrinsic properties of the task items themselves.<n>We show Scales++ reduces the upfront selection cost by over 18x while achieving competitive predictive fidelity.<n>We demonstrate that this item-centric approach enables more efficient model evaluation without significant fidelity degradation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-30T11:28:58Z)
• Foundational Automatic Evaluators: Scaling Multi-Task Generative Evaluator Training for Reasoning-Centric Domains [97.5573252172065]
  We train a family of Automatic Reasoning Evaluators (FARE) with a simple iterative rejection-sampling supervised finetuning approach.<n>FARE-8B challenges larger specialized RL-trained evaluators and FARE-20B sets the new standard for open-source evaluators.<n>As inference-time rerankers, FARE-20B achieves near-oracle performance on MATH.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-20T17:52:06Z)
• SureMap: Simultaneous Mean Estimation for Single-Task and Multi-Task Disaggregated Evaluation [75.56845750400116]
  Disaggregated evaluation -- estimation of performance of a machine learning model on different subpopulations -- is a core task when assessing performance and group-fairness of AI systems. We develop SureMap that has high estimation accuracy for both multi-task and single-task disaggregated evaluations of blackbox models. Our method combines maximum a posteriori (MAP) estimation using a well-chosen prior together with cross-validation-free tuning via Stein's unbiased risk estimate (SURE)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-14T17:53:35Z)
• On Speeding Up Language Model Evaluation [48.51924035873411]
  We propose an $textitadaptive$ approach to explore this space.<n>We lean on multi-armed bandits to sequentially identify the next (method, validation sample)-pair to evaluate.<n>We show that it can identify the top-performing method using only 5-15% of the typical resources.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-08T17:48:42Z)
• Which Prompts Make The Difference? Data Prioritization For Efficient Human LLM Evaluation [9.452326973655445]
  We find that metric-based methods enhance the efficiency of human evaluations by minimizing the number of required annotations. We show that our method is effective across widely used model families, reducing instances of indecisive (or "tie") outcomes by up to 54%. This potential reduction in required human effort positions our approach as a valuable strategy in future large language model evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-22T21:48:51Z)
• Active Surrogate Estimators: An Active Learning Approach to Label-Efficient Model Evaluation [59.7305309038676]
  We propose Active Surrogate Estimators (ASEs) for model evaluation. We find that ASEs offer greater label-efficiency than the current state-of-the-art.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-14T17:15:18Z)
• Meta-Learned Confidence for Few-shot Learning [60.6086305523402]
  A popular transductive inference technique for few-shot metric-based approaches, is to update the prototype of each class with the mean of the most confident query examples. We propose to meta-learn the confidence for each query sample, to assign optimal weights to unlabeled queries. We validate our few-shot learning model with meta-learned confidence on four benchmark datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-27T10:22:17Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.