Which LLM for Which Work? Budgeted Model Allocation under Uncertain Evaluation
Hamed KhosraviXiaoming Huo
Sep 2026
Machine LearningData Science
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.
Agile - denoting "the quality of being agile, readiness for motion, nimbleness, activity, dexterity in motion" - software development methods are attempting to offer an answer to the eager business community asking for lighter weight along with faster and nimbler software development processes. This is especially the case with the rapidly growing and volatile Internet software industry as well as for the emerging mobile application environment. The new agile methods have evoked substantial amount of literature and debates. However, academic research on the subject is still scarce, as most of existing publications are written by practitioners or consultants. The aim of this publication is to begin filling this gap by systematically reviewing the existing literature on agile software development methodologies. This publication has three purposes. First, it proposes a definition and a classification of agile software development approaches. Second, it analyses ten software development methods that can be characterized as being "agile" against the defined criterion. Third, it compares these methods and highlights their similarities and differences. Based on this analysis, future research needs are identified and discussed.
P. Abrahamsson, O. Salo, Jussi Ronkainen et al.· arXiv.org· 728 citations· ⚡54
Context: Software startups are newly created companies with no operating history and fast in producing cutting-edge technologies. These companies develop software under highly uncertain conditions, tackling fast-growing markets under severe lack of resources. Therefore, software startups present a unique combination of characteristics which pose several challenges to software development activities. Objective: This study aims to structure and analyze the literature on software development in startup companies, determining thereby the potential for technology transfer and identifying software development work practices reported by practitioners and researchers. Method: We conducted a systematic mapping study, developing a classification schema, ranking the selected primary studies according their rigor and relevance, and analyzing reported software development work practices in startups. Results: A total of 43 primary studies were identified and mapped, synthesizing the available evidence on software development in startups. Only 16 studies are entirely dedicated to software development in startups, of which 10 result in a weak contribution (advice and implications (6); lesson learned (3); tool (1)). Nineteen studies focus on managerial and organizational factors. Moreover, only 9 studies exhibit high scientific rigor and relevance. From the reviewed primary studies, 213 software engineering work practices were extracted, categorized and analyzed. Conclusion: This mapping study provides the first systematic exploration of the state-of-art on software startup research. The existing body of knowledge is limited to a few high quality studies. Furthermore, the results indicate that software engineering work practices are chosen opportunistically, adapted and configured to provide value under the constrains imposed by the startup context.
Nicolò Paternoster, Carmine Giardino, M. Unterkalmsteiner et al.· Information and Software Tec...· 394 citations· ⚡54
A new method for surgically removing training examples from a model reveals that as datasets grow, the link between what a model learns and what it produces dissolves.
