Which LLM for Which Work? Budgeted Model Allocation under Uncertain Evaluation
2mo
- Published
- Collected
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.
Authors
Hamed Khosravi, Xiaoming Huo
Categories
overfeed.news indexes and links. We publish a short excerpt — the full article stays at arXiv AI Papers.
More from arXiv AI Papers
Log in to follow this source
Unbundling Multimodal Vision Encoding
How multimodal language models should encode visual input remains up for debate. Most models use a pretrained vision encoder, while some recent recipes train the encoder from scratch with the language model or remove it entirely. Vision encoders bundle together three design choices: a visual prior from upstream pretraining, dedicated vision capacity, and pre-fusion placement of that capacity (i.e., before the multimodal backbone). Because published models also differ in data, architecture, and compute, comparing them cannot isolate the effect of each choice. We disentangle these choices via a controlled framework where we pretrain all models from scratch on common data and compare them on visual question answering and language benchmarks at matched lifetime compute. We find that the visual prior is not necessary; an encoder trained jointly from scratch is on par with a pretrained one, without a separate training stage. What matters instead is dedicated vision capacity: an encoder-free model trails on visual understanding even when its backbone is enlarged by the encoder's parameter count. Yet that capacity need not precede multimodal fusion, as vision-only modules added in-fusion to early backbone layers perform comparably to a pre-fusion encoder and can lower time to first token. These results also hold across backbone sizes, when encoder pretraining is treated as free, and when starting from a pretrained language model. Overall, our findings favor dedicated vision capacity trained jointly with the backbone and placed early within it.
ArchSpace: Recording, Reviewing, and Referencing LLM Architecture Research
Model architecture shapes the scaling behavior, training efficiency, and inference cost of LLMs, making it a central focus of both industry and academia. In industry, teams such as those behind DeepSeek, Qwen, and Kimi routinely introduce architectural innovations, yet public reports rarely document which ideas succeeded, which were abandoned, and why. In academia, limited compute and inconsistent baselines often restrict evaluations to small-scale, single-point comparisons, making it difficult to establish whether improvements hold at larger scales or translate into broader impact. ArchSpace addresses both gaps as a public platform for Recording, Reviewing, and Referencing Architecture Researc}: each proposal is recorded with its experiments and reasoning, reviewed by the community, and referenced by later work. To evaluate ideas before costly large-scale training, ArchSpace leverages scaling laws to predict model loss at larger scales from smaller experiments, a practice widely adopted in industry. We provide initial references that make the platform usable: Qwen3.5 and OLMo3 baselines, fitted scaling laws, and a reusable training recipe. Ideas validated through this review can in turn become new baselines, and ArchSpace thereby aims to broaden the range of ideas that shape the next generation of models.
Internalizing Investment Mandates: A Neurosymbolic RL Approach to Portfolio Allocation
Institutional portfolios operate under investment policy statements that specify asset allocation constraints, often conditioned on market regime information. Deep reinforcement learning has been shown to optimize financial performance but typically does not enforce rule compliance, making it unsuitable for real-world deployment. Existing neurosymbolic methods such as Probabilistic Logic Policy Gradient (PLPG) offer constraint-satisfying reinforcement learning (RL) via differentiable symbolic supervision but assume a finite, discrete action space. We present a PLPG-inspired continuous allocation method that estimates the probability that the policy's own executed action satisfies the investment mandate, using reparameterized Monte Carlo sampling, and adds it to the training objective. No post-hoc enforcement mechanism intercepts actions at inference time and compliance is learned by the agent. Audited directly on deterministic mean actions with no correction, the policy reduces violations of a six-rule regime-conditional mandate from 96-98% for unconstrained RL and 33.4% for a reward-penalty baseline to 4.8%, showing that a continuous-action neurosymbolic policy can substantially internalize a symbolic mandate.
AgentSSL: Can MLE Agents Leverage Unlabeled Data?
Applying machine learning systems to new domains introduces bottlenecks in both labeled data acquisition and manual pipeline engineering. While recent MLE agents show promise in automating pipeline design, they have been studied almost exclusively in fully supervised settings, leaving them untested in realistic regimes where labeled data is scarce but unlabeled data is abundant. In this work, we introduce Agentic Semi-Supervised Learning (AgentSSL), framing SSL as a program search problem and studying how agents navigate this space under limited supervision. We find that even under weak feedback and matched compute, agents can synthesize code that combines and adapts established SSL techniques, exceeding the strongest human-engineered baselines in 8 of 12 settings by up to +21.8%. However, our results identify program selection as a critical bottleneck in AgentSSL, where performance drops by as much as 47% when selecting based on the agent's feedback metric. To systematically study this bottleneck, we introduce ProgramSelectBench, a large-scale benchmark with a combined total of 16,977 agent-generated and human-engineered SSL programs, and evaluate both unsupervised and active program selection methods. We further evaluate AgentSSL on real-world ecology detection tasks, highlighting the opportunities and challenges of transferring agent-discovered strategies beyond controlled benchmarks.