Model Cascading for Code: A Cascaded Black-Box Multi-Model Framework for Cost-Efficient Code Completion with Self-Testing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rapid advancement of large language models (LLMs) has significantly improved code completion tasks, yet the trade-off between accuracy and computational cost remains a critical challenge. While using larger models and incorporating inference-time self-testing algorithms can significantly improve output accuracy, they incur substantial computational expenses at the same time. Furthermore, servers in real-world scenarios usually have a dynamic preference on the cost-accuracy tradeoff, depending on the budget, bandwidth, the concurrent user volume, and users’ sensitivity to wrong answers. In this work, we introduce a novel framework combining model cascading and inference-time self-feedback algorithms to find multiple near-optimal self-testing options on the cost-accuracy tradeoff in LLM-based code generation. Our approach leverages self-generated tests to both enhance accuracy and evaluate model cascading decisions. As a blackbox inference-time method, it requires no access to internal model parameters. We further propose a threshold-based algorithm to determine when to deploy larger models and a heuristic to optimize the number of solutions, test cases, and test lines generated per model, based on budget constraints. Experimental results show that our cascading approach reduces costs by an average of 26%, and up to 70% in the best case, across various model families and datasets, while maintaining or improving accuracy in natural language generation tasks compared to both random and optimal single-model self-testing schemes. To our knowledge, this is the first work to provide a series of choices for optimizing the cost-accuracy trade-off in LLM code generation with self-testing.
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 | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".