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

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.08522v1
• Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2026 14:17:03 GMT
• Title: Stop Guessing When to Stop Testing: Efficient Model Evaluation with Just Enough Data
• Abstract summary: We provide a principled way to navigate the trade-off between efficiency and reliability in model evaluation.<n>Our framework combines the established statistical paradigm of sequential testing with stopping criteria tailored to common evaluation needs.<n>We demonstrate its ability to adaptively manage the efficiency-reliability trade-off on the Open VLM Leaderboard.
• Score: 19.652133288960318
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: The inherent rigidity of fixed-size benchmarks makes them an inefficient tool for model evaluation. Diverse evaluation objectives, including model ranking, model selection and testing throughout development, demand varying levels of statistical power. The mismatch between fixed sample sizes and these diverse needs results in either excessive computational cost or compromised reliability - a critical concern for model evaluation. To overcome these limitations, we call for adoption of sequential testing in our field. We provide an adaptive evaluation framework, that provides a principled way to navigate the trade-off between efficiency and reliability in model evaluation. Our framework combines the established statistical paradigm of sequential testing with stopping criteria tailored to common evaluation needs such as diminishing returns detection, and minimum detectable effect size. We demonstrate its ability to adaptively manage the efficiency-reliability trade-off on the Open VLM Leaderboard, including, for example, a 80% reduction in computational cost compared to fixed-size evaluation (with a 2.5-point CI width allowance) while maintaining statistical significance.

Related papers

• 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)
• DualEval: Joint Model-Item Calibration for Unified LLM Evaluation [67.99119926012686]
  DualEval is a latent model-item calibration framework that represents models and evaluation items in a shared space.<n>We apply DualEval across four domains: coding, math, miscellaneous domain-knowledge tasks, and generic everyday user queries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-24T22:40:46Z)
• Fault-Tolerant Evaluation for Sample-Efficient Model Performance Estimators [13.227055178509524]
  We propose a fault-tolerant evaluation framework that integrates bias and variance considerations within an adjustable tolerance level.<n>We show that proper calibration of $varepsilon$ ensures reliable evaluation across different variance regimes.<n> Experiments on real-world datasets demonstrate that our framework provides comprehensive and actionable insights into estimator behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-06T22:14:46Z)
• 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)
• ARISE: An Adaptive Resolution-Aware Metric for Test-Time Scaling Evaluation in Large Reasoning Models [102.4511331368587]
  ARISE (Adaptive Resolution-aware Scaling Evaluation) is a novel metric designed to assess the test-time scaling effectiveness of large reasoning models.<n>We conduct comprehensive experiments evaluating state-of-the-art reasoning models across diverse domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-07T15:10:51Z)
• Cer-Eval: Certifiable and Cost-Efficient Evaluation Framework for LLMs [29.764833226591012]
  This paper introduces a certifiable and cost-efficient evaluation framework for large language models (LLMs)<n>We use test sample complexity'' to quantify the number of test points needed for a certifiable evaluation and derive tight bounds on test sample complexity.<n>Based on the developed theory, we develop a partition-based algorithm, named Cer-Eval, that adaptively selects test points to minimize the cost of LLM evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-02T17:05:01Z)
• A Conformal Approach to Feature-based Newsvendor under Model Misspecification [2.801095519296785]
  We propose a model-free and distribution-free framework inspired by conformal prediction.<n>We validate our framework using both simulated data and a real-world dataset from the Capital Bikeshare program in Washington, D.C.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-17T18:34:43Z)
• A Probabilistic Perspective on Unlearning and Alignment for Large Language Models [48.96686419141881]
  We introduce the first formal probabilistic evaluation framework for Large Language Models (LLMs)<n> Namely, we propose novel metrics with high probability guarantees concerning the output distribution of a model.<n>Our metrics are application-independent and allow practitioners to make more reliable estimates about model capabilities before deployment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-04T15:44:23Z)
• A Framework for Efficient Model Evaluation through Stratification, Sampling, and Estimation [17.351089059392674]
  We propose a framework for model evaluation that includes stratification, sampling, and estimation components. We show that stratification via k-means clustering based on accurate predictions of model performance yields efficient estimators. We also find that model-assisted estimators, which leverage predictions of model accuracy on the unlabeled portion of the dataset, are generally more efficient than the traditional estimates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-11T14:49:04Z)
• QualEval: Qualitative Evaluation for Model Improvement [82.73561470966658]
  We propose QualEval, which augments quantitative scalar metrics with automated qualitative evaluation as a vehicle for model improvement. QualEval uses a powerful LLM reasoner and our novel flexible linear programming solver to generate human-readable insights. We demonstrate that leveraging its insights, for example, improves the absolute performance of the Llama 2 model by up to 15% points relative.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-06T00:21:44Z)
• Position: AI Evaluation Should Learn from How We Test Humans [65.36614996495983]
  We argue that psychometrics, a theory originating in the 20th century for human assessment, could be a powerful solution to the challenges in today's AI evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-18T09:54:33Z)
• GREAT Score: Global Robustness Evaluation of Adversarial Perturbation using Generative Models [60.48306899271866]
  We present a new framework, called GREAT Score, for global robustness evaluation of adversarial perturbation using generative models. We show high correlation and significantly reduced cost of GREAT Score when compared to the attack-based model ranking on RobustBench. GREAT Score can be used for remote auditing of privacy-sensitive black-box models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-19T14:58:27Z)
• Effective Robustness against Natural Distribution Shifts for Models with Different Training Data [113.21868839569]
  "Effective robustness" measures the extra out-of-distribution robustness beyond what can be predicted from the in-distribution (ID) performance. We propose a new evaluation metric to evaluate and compare the effective robustness of models trained on different data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-02T19:28:41Z)

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.