This paper argues that a small win does not show that routing did anything, the authors' or anyone else's, and argues that a small win does not show that routing did anything, theirs or anyone else's.
Abstract
An LLM router picks which model should answer each query. The appeal is that models fail on different questions. Whatever single model is best overall still gets some wrong, and another model in the pool gets many of those right. Getting that choice right every time is the ceiling, and a router is an attempt to approach it. However, recent work reports that routers do not get close. Across 21 routing methods on five benchmarks, sharply different designs land within a fraction of a point of each other, and all of them stay far below that ceiling. Learned routers often fail to beat simply always calling the strongest model. We ask what those missed questions have in common. We set fourteen models to answer all 294 questions, with 7 task types across 3 languages: Korean, English and Hindi. We ran the whole matrix twice, changing nothing, but 5.37% of the 4,116 model-question pairs came out scored differently anyway. Run-to-run movement like that is normal, and we argue that a small win does not show that routing did anything, ours or anyone else's. Counting an answer correct only when the model got it right in both runs, 29 questions on this matrix can be improved with routing. Every correct-answer count here is on that rule. Task type accounts for most of them: assigning each task type one model in advance, chosen once and never updated, improves 21 of the 29. Splitting each task type by language improves 2 more and leaves 6 of 294 unoptimized. That handful is what a learned router would have been built for, and it is smaller than the run-to-run movement above, which is a share of pairs rather than of questions. The static table we adopted answers 262 of 294 questions at \$3.33 per run, against the best single model's 245 at \$7.69. All of this is fitted and scored on the same 294 questions with no holdout.
Web agents observe a browser through text, pixels, or both, and the choice is usually fixed once for all tasks, so a stronger agent can overturn the result, and the rerun noise bands and the full measurement protocol are reported.
Jiaming Wei, Zekun Wu, Adriano S. Koshiyama et al.· 0 citations
We study the problem of guarded query routing, where we assume that a user query first meets a router that either determines the ideal endpoint for in-distribution queries or rejects out-of-distribution queries that are potentially unsafe or out of the system's scope. We investigate whether compact open-weight Small Language Models (SLMs) can jointly handle both tasks under latency constraints. We evaluate 22 models on GQR-Bench and score them with the harmonic mean of in-distribution and out-of-distribution accuracy. We find that mid-scale SLMs come close to frontier model routing quality at much lower latency. Still, many compact models fail because they do not reliably follow the required output format. However, our results show that prompt optimization techniques enable SLMs to handle such cases gracefully, without changing the models'weights. Moreover, few-shot prompt optimization raises Mistral 7B from 81.79 to 90.87 GQR-Score and lifts Qwen3.5 9B to 95.74, the best optimized score in our study and within 0.3 points of the strongest unoptimized larger model: Gemma 3 27B at 96.01. The bare DSPy signature, without in-context exemplars, is the most effective strategy for Granite 4 Tiny, raising its score from 54.29 to 83.05. These results show that prompt optimization is a useful first step for guarded query routing, while weaker models may still need weight-level adaptation or schema-aware training
Richard Sléher, William Brach, Kristián Košt’ál et al.· 0 citations
Empirical results on RouterBench and SWE-Bench demonstrate that WR-Offline surpasses existing baselines in performance under a fixed budget and adheres more closely to budget constraints, and WR-Online achieves comparable performance to the baselines, while using substantially less exploration data.
We ask whether large language models (LLMs) can design effective algorithms for well-specified operations research (OR) problems. We study inventory control, queueing network control, and assortment optimization. We evaluate two levels of LLM use: at level 1, the model receives one problem instance and returns a solution for that instance; at level 2, it receives only the problem class description and broad parameter ranges, and returns an algorithm that maps instance parameters to solutions. Human input is minimal: we give one untuned prompt that describes the problem, and the model has access to a Python sandbox tool with a fixed compute budget. The strongest model we test, gpt-5.6-sol, matches or outperforms the best existing method on almost all evaluated instances. This holds even at level 2, where the returned algorithm is fixed before seeing the evaluation instances. Performance also improves sharply across models released less than eight months apart, suggesting that this capability is moving quickly. Thus, for the well-specified operations problems we study, a single untuned LLM query can already produce algorithms competitive with specialized methods. These results suggest that frontier LLMs can be a serious empirical baseline for algorithm design in well-specified OR problems.
Frontier language models can resolve repository-level software issues, but each attempt is expensive, and existing routers select a model from the issue text alone. We present SuperScout, which routes after scouting the repository: a 7B searcher, SuperScout-7B, first explores the repository and produces a structured handoff whose reproduction claims are sandbox-verified, with false claims stripped before delivery. The searcher's hidden states, together with the task text, then feed a resume-based router that dispatches the task to one of four frontier fixers. Adding a new fixer requires no retraining. On the full Python slice of SWE-bench Pro (266 tasks) under the benchmark's official capped budget tier, SuperScout matches the best single model's solve rate (159 of 266 for SuperScout, 158 for the best model) at about a fifth of the total cost per solve, and the reported configuration sits above the random traffic-splitting baseline. A no-router ablation, always the cheapest fixer with the handoff, ties the routed system on this benchmark, so the handoff rather than the routing decision carries the result. A paired calibration study points to the mechanism: the handoff appears to redistribute rather than add solving ability, lifting the three cheaper fixers while slightly hurting the strongest, though at $N=99$ the per-fixer effects are directional only; the searcher's hidden states improve cost routing on the calibration labels while the handoff's own text does not. The searcher's compute adds less than half a cent of GPU time per task.
Fresh, objectively scored benchmark items can support auditable accuracy-cost-latency routing when features encode verifiable computational structure, and show that fresh, objectively scored benchmark items can support auditable accuracy-cost-latency routing when features encode verifiable computational structure.
Grace Xu· Journal of Science Innovatio...· 0 citations