跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail
← 研踪 PaperTrail

arXiv:2611.15911 · v1

Smart Model Routing for Order-of-Magnitude LLM Cost Reduction

首次提交 2026-11-12 03:13
版本更新 2026-11-12 03:13
雷达观测 2026-11-13 14:16
arXiv ↗PDF ↗

摘要

Frontier large language models (LLMs) deliver the strongest response quality but carry per-token prices often more than an order of magnitude above those of smaller, task-adequate models. Smart model routing addresses this mismatch by assigning each query to the cheapest model expected to answer it adequately, rather than sending every request to the most capable, most expensive endpoint. This paper develops a formal cost-quality optimization framework for routing -- including a derived optimal threshold-policy structure, a calibration-versus-discrimination distinction, a cascade breakeven condition, and a sensitivity analysis over price ratio and traffic skew -- situates that framework against the principal routing architectures and the signals used to estimate query difficulty, and works through a numerical example showing how a calibrated router can reduce blended inference cost by roughly an order of magnitude relative to an always-frontier deployment under specific, stated pricing and traffic assumptions, reporting both the gross reduction from routing policy alone and the net figure with the router's own overhead priced in. We situate this figure against the range reported by published routing systems (roughly 2x to frontier-level accuracy at one-fifth the cost), and close with the practical risks -- under- and over-routing, aggregate quality constraints masking segment-level harm, calibration without discrimination, calibration drift, prompt injection into routing signals, and operational failures such as tier outages and multi-provider price variation -- that determine whether the savings materialize in production. The analysis is primarily analytical, complemented by a GSM8K evaluation of the cascade framework (Section 5), validated (Section 5.2); extending the evaluation across tasks and model families is future work.

作者备注:35 pages, 4 figures, 3 tables

AI 论文解读

基于摘要 · 非全文审阅

此版本尚未生成 AI 解读。解读由后台任务生成并按论文版本保存,登录后共享已有结果。

版本差异

目前只收录了一个版本。收录下一版后,可以对照标题、作者、分类和摘要。

观测到的版本

相邻记录可能跳过中间版本;首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。

v1 · 2026-11-12 03:13 · 最新观测版本

Smart Model Routing for Order-of-Magnitude LLM Cost Reduction

Frontier large language models (LLMs) deliver the strongest response quality but carry per-token prices often more than an order of magnitude above those of smaller, task-adequate models. Smart model routing addresses this mismatch by assigning each query to the cheapest model expected to answer it adequately, rather than sending every request to the most capable, most expensive endpoint. This paper develops a formal cost-quality optimization framework for routing -- including a derived optimal threshold-policy structure, a calibration-versus-discrimination distinction, a cascade breakeven condition, and a sensitivity analysis over price ratio and traffic skew -- situates that framework against the principal routing architectures and the signals used to estimate query difficulty, and works through a numerical example showing how a calibrated router can reduce blended inference cost by roughly an order of magnitude relative to an always-frontier deployment under specific, stated pricing and traffic assumptions, reporting both the gross reduction from routing policy alone and the net figure with the router's own overhead priced in. We situate this figure against the range reported by published routing systems (roughly 2x to frontier-level accuracy at one-fifth the cost), and close with the practical risks -- under- and over-routing, aggregate quality constraints masking segment-level harm, calibration without discrimination, calibration drift, prompt injection into routing signals, and operational failures such as tier outages and multi-provider price variation -- that determine whether the savings materialize in production. The analysis is primarily analytical, complemented by a GSM8K evaluation of the cascade framework (Section 5), validated (Section 5.2); extending the evaluation across tasks and model families is future work.

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗