Large Language Model Selection with Limited Annotations

Choosing a Large Language Model (LLM) for a given task requires comparing many strong candidates, yet standard evaluation relies on costly annotations over fixed evaluation sets. To address this challenge, we develop SELECT-LLM, the first framework for active model selection of LLMs. SELECT-LLM aims to find a small set of queries whose annotations are most informative for identifying the best LLM for a given task. To this end, we introduce a query selection rule based on expected information gain, computed from pairwise similarities between candidate model outputs. Because this rule only uses generated model responses, SELECT-LLM can be applied across candidate models without assumptions about their architecture or access to model weights. This makes it suitable for both open-weight and black-box LLMs. We evaluate SELECT-LLM across 23 datasets, 156 evaluated models, diverse task families, and multiple text evaluation metrics. Across all experiments, SELECT-LLM improves over the strongest baseline in every setting, with annotation cost reductions up to 81.8% for best model selection and up to 84.78% for near-best model selection.

Active Model Selection for Large Language Models

We introduce LLM SELECTOR, the first framework for active model selection of Large Language Models (LLMs). Unlike prior evaluation and benchmarking approaches that rely on fully annotated datasets, LLM SELECTOR efficiently identifies the best LLM with limited annotations. In particular, for any given task, LLM SELECTOR adaptively selects a small set of queries to annotate that are most informative about the best model for the task. To further reduce annotation cost, we leverage a judge-based oracle annotation model. Through extensive experiments on 6 benchmarks with 151 LLMs, we show that LLM SELECTOR reduces annotation costs by up to 59.62% when selecting the best and near-best LLM for the task.

A Systematic Review on the Evaluation of Large Language Models in Theory of Mind Tasks

In recent years, evaluating the Theory of Mind (ToM) capabilities of large language models (LLMs) has received significant attention within the research community. As the field rapidly evolves, navigating the diverse approaches and methodologies has become increasingly complex. This systematic review synthesizes current efforts to assess LLMs' ability to perform ToM tasks, an essential aspect of human cognition involving the attribution of mental states to oneself and others. Despite notable advancements, the proficiency of LLMs in ToM remains a contentious issue. By categorizing benchmarks and tasks through a taxonomy rooted in cognitive science, this review critically examines evaluation techniques, prompting strategies, and the inherent limitations of LLMs in replicating human-like mental state reasoning. A recurring theme in the literature reveals that while LLMs demonstrate emerging competence in ToM tasks, significant gaps persist in their emulation of human cognitive abilities.