Cutting LLM Evaluation Costs with SySRs: A Bandit Algorithm that Provably Exploits Model Similarity
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
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.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 25 of its 36 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 5 Jun 2026.
Builds on
25 of 36 references.
References · 25
- 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,626
- 2019Do ImageNet Classifiers Generalize to ImageNet?cited by 1,515
- 2023Quantifying Language Models' Sensitivity to Spurious Features in Prompt Design or: How I learned to start worrying about prompt formattingcited by 817
- 2024tinyBenchmarks: evaluating LLMs with fewer examplescited by 310
- 2014On the Complexity of Best Arm Identification in Multi-Armed Bandit Modelscited by 286
- 2021Accuracy on the Line: On the Strong Correlation Between Out-of-Distribution and In-Distribution Generalizationcited by 249
- 2024LLMs instead of Human Judges? A Large Scale Empirical Study across 20 NLP Evaluation Taskscited by 243
- 2024Observational Scaling Laws and the Predictability of Language Model Performancecited by 130
- 2023Anchor Points: Benchmarking Models with Much Fewer Examplescited by 86
- 2016Tight (Lower) Bounds for the Fixed Budget Best Arm Identification Bandit Problemcited by 79
- 2025Great Models Think Alike and this Undermines AI Oversightcited by 58
- 2024Limits to scalable evaluation at the frontier: LLM as Judge won't beat twice the datacited by 51
13 more
- 2025Correlated Errors in Large Language Modelscited by 45
- 2024metabench -- A Sparse Benchmark of Reasoning and Knowledge in Large Language Modelscited by 39
- 2019Model Similarity Mitigates Test Set Overusecited by 38
- 2019Multi-Armed Bandits with Correlated Armscited by 34
- 2025How Benchmark Prediction from Fewer Data Misses the Markcited by 28
- 2020Why do classifier accuracies show linear trends under distribution shift?cited by 21
- 2023Open Problem: Optimal Best Arm Identification with Fixed Budgetcited by 18
- 2021Policy Choice and Best Arm Identification: Asymptotic Analysis of Exploration Samplingcited by 15
- 2024On Speeding Up Language Model Evaluationcited by 15
- 2025How Reliable is Language Model Micro-Benchmarking?cited by 9
- 2021Best-Arm Identification in Correlated Multi-Armed Banditscited by 8
- 2025Position: Stop Evaluating AI with Human Tests, Develop Principled, AI-specific Tests insteadcited by 7
- 2018Correlated Multi-armed Bandits with a Latent Random Sourcecited by 6
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.
2 papers.