AcTracer: Active Testing of Large Language Model via Multi-Stage Sampling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Performance evaluation plays a crucial role in the development lifecycle of large language models (LLMs). It estimates the model’s capability, elucidates behavior characteristics, and facilitates the identification of potential issues and limitations, thereby guiding further improvement. Given that LLMs’ diverse task-handling abilities stem from large volumes of training data, a comprehensive evaluation also necessitates abundant, well-annotated, and representative test data to assess LLM performance across various downstream tasks. However, the demand for high-quality test data often entails substantial time, computational resources, and manual efforts, sometimes causing the evaluation to be inefficient or impractical. To address these challenges, researchers propose active testing, which estimates the overall performance by selecting a subset of test data. Nevertheless, the existing active testing methods tend to be inefficient, even inapplicable, given the unique new challenges of LLMs (e.g., diverse task types, increased model complexity, and unavailability of training data). To mitigate such limitations and expedite the development cycle of LLMs, in this work, we introduce AcTracer, an active testing framework tailored for LLMs that strategically selects a small subset of test data to achieve a more accurate performance estimation for LLMs. AcTracer utilizes both internal and external information from LLMs to guide the test sampling process, reducing variance through a multi-stage pool-based active selection. Our experiment results demonstrate that AcTracer achieves state-of-the-art performance compared to existing methods across various tasks.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".