LLM Routing Optimization

• LLM routing is the strategic allocation of queries to the most appropriate large language model, balancing accuracy, cost, and latency.
• Classifier-based routing employs pre-trained Transformer models and selection policies to predict the optimal LLM for each query.
• Clustering-based routing groups similar queries, though its gains over the best individual model are often marginal in current evaluations.

LLM routing refers to the strategic allocation of each input query to the most appropriate LLM from a pool of models, with the goal of optimizing overall task accuracy, minimizing computational expense, and maintaining low inference latency. The central motivation for LLM routing is the empirical observation that no single LLM exhibits uniform superiority across all reasoning tasks. Routing systems seek to harness the diversity of model capabilities, leveraging performance heterogeneity so that each query is answered by the model best suited to its requirements, while avoiding the inefficiency of ensemble or parallel invocation.

1. Problem Definition and Motivation

LLM routing addresses the challenge of maximizing system performance by assigning each query to the most appropriate model from a set of LLMs $\mathcal{L}$, each with distinct strengths, costs, and failure modes. Let $q$ denote an input query and $l \in \mathcal{L}$ a candidate LLM. The routing objective is formalized as selecting $l^*$ that optimizes

$$l^* = \arg\max_{l \in \mathcal{L}} \ s(q, l) \quad \text{subject to} \quad C_{l}(q) \leq B$$

where $s(q, l)$ is a measure of expected response quality (e.g., accuracy based on majority voting over model outputs), $C_l(q)$ is the cost of invoking model $l$ on query $q$ (in terms of tokens, latency, or other resources), and $B$ is a system-defined cost or latency budget (Varangot-Reille et al., 1 Feb 2025).

Routing is justified by the absence of a universally dominant LLM: for many reasoning and complex benchmarks, different queries are best handled by different models. Theoretical oracle analysis—in which an upper-bound selector always picks the model that will yield a correct answer—demonstrates that routing can (in theory) significantly outperform relying on even the best single LLM.

2. Methodological Approaches

2.1 Classifier-Based Routing

Classifier-based routing models treat LLM selection as a supervised classification problem. Given a labeled dataset where each query $q$ is annotated with the subset of LLMs that correctly solve it, the routing label is defined as

$$\text{label}(q) = \left\{ l \in \mathcal{L} \mid \operatorname{maj@10}(q, l) = 1 \right\}$$

where $\operatorname{maj@10}(q, l)$ evaluates to 1 if a majority of 10 outputs generated by $l$ match the gold answer. Two classifier variants are explored:

• Multi-label classifier (mlc): Simultaneously predicts all suitable LLMs for $q$ in a single forward pass.
• Separate binary classifiers (sc): One classifier per LLM, each trained to determine suitability for the query.

Both approaches are instantiated using pre-trained Transformer encoder backbones (e.g., BERT, T5, RoBERTa), with fine-tuned RoBERTa found to be most effective in experimental evaluations.

To convert classifier output into a single routing decision, several selection policies are used:

• ArgMax: Selects the LLM with the highest classifier confidence.
• Random (above threshold): Selects an LLM at random from those with predicted confidence above a fixed threshold (e.g., 0.8).
• Prediction Policy: A regressor predicts the optimal confidence value; the LLM closest to this is chosen.
• Sorted Prediction: Sorts LLMs by confidence; weaker models are occasionally selected to identify potential hidden strengths.

These strategies allow flexible balancing of accuracy, cost, and response time.

2.2 Clustering-Based Routing

Clustering-based routing leverages query similarity: queries are grouped into clusters using vector representations (e.g., TF-IDF or RoBERTa hidden states). Each cluster is assigned the LLM, chosen by majority performance, which most effectively answers the cluster's training queries. New queries are embedded, assigned to a cluster, and routed accordingly.

Clustering aims to exploit the hypothesis that similar queries have similar model performance profiles; however, observed improvements over classifier-based approaches have been marginal in practice.

3. Experimental Evaluation

Empirical assessments use challenging reasoning benchmarks such as GSM8K and MMLU. The methodology involves constructing training datasets of moderate size (approximately 9,000–15,000 labeled queries), using majority voting over 10 model generations to robustly assign ground truth “solved” labels.

The following findings were established:

• Classifier-based routing outperformed the weakest individual models but did not reach the accuracy of the single best LLM available. Gains over the best individual model were marginal (often falling within the error bars), especially when data was limited.
• Clustering-based routing failed to produce significant additional improvements and tended to default to the best individual model for most clusters, revealing a lack of exploitable query-level diversity in those benchmarks.
• Latency: Inference time with routing is not increased relative to the best individual model, as only one LLM is invoked per query—demonstrating substantial computational cost reductions relative to naive ensemble strategies.

A summary of key results:

Routing Method	Accuracy vs. Best LLM	Latency	Relative Cost
Oracle Routing	Higher	Comparable	Lower
Classifier (mlc, sc)	Slightly lower	Comparable	Lower
Clustering	Comparable to best	Comparable	Lower

(The “Oracle Routing” column refers to a theoretical upper-bound.)

The authors identify overfitting, especially in separate binary classifiers, due to data sparsity and class imbalance as a primary barrier to improved performance.

4. Limitations and Open Challenges

Despite the theoretical promise, practical limitations emerged:

• Insufficient data: Training data size (∼9k–15k) is inadequate to allow the router to learn fine-grained query-model interactions, especially for complex benchmarks.
• Label skew: Classifier confidence tends to concentrate heavily on a small subset of models, limiting diversity in selection outcomes.
• Dominant models: When the LLM pool includes one or two models substantially better than the rest, routing offers less benefit because the diversity of strong candidates is not present.
• Underutilization of query-level diversity: Clustering-based routing has been largely neutralized by the lack of distinctive clusters requiring different models.

The complex landscape of LLM performance calls for more robust and data-hungry approaches—potentially requiring ensemble router architectures, improved calibration of confidence intervals, and incorporation of LLM-specific features.

5. Practical Implications and Deployment

LLM routing frameworks enable organizations to optimize usage of computational resources by minimizing unnecessary invocations of expensive models while maintaining acceptable answer quality. Deployment settings may include:

• Cloud or edge-computing environments, where resource constraints and latency are critical.
• Dynamic settings where available LLMs evolve, necessitating flexible routing mechanisms.
• Service models integrating diverse expert LLMs, potentially handling multi-domain or multi-lingual tasks more efficiently.

Balancing accuracy and latency is central: classifier selection policies (especially those using regressed “optimal” confidence) offer a tunable trade-off knob. Real-world deployments should anticipate the need for continual router retraining as both model pools and user query distributions shift.

6. Recommendations for Future Research

Improved routing efficacy will likely hinge on several emerging research directions:

• Scaling up training data: Larger, more diverse labeled datasets with richer query coverage are crucial.
• Router architecture innovation: Ensemble or hybrid routers, integration of auxiliary task signals, or leveraging large LLMs as meta-routers could enhance query-model matching.
• Feature enrichment: Incorporating LLM-specific features—such as model confidence calibration, runtime behavior, or known weaknesses—may lead to more discriminative router policies.
• Robustness and adaptivity: Exploration of methods for robust routing under distributional shift, as well as real-time or online learning paradigms, remains necessary.

Further, evaluation must extend beyond accuracy to include rigorous cost and latency analyses, reflecting the practical objectives of LLM routing.

---

LLM routing represents an essential paradigm for maximizing the efficiency and effectiveness of multi-model natural language processing infrastructures, offering the potential for enhanced accuracy and resource savings when model diversity and adequate meta-data are available. The methodology's current limitations are predominantly attributable to insufficiently expressive training data and the statistical dominance of a subset of LLMs within current pools, motivating ongoing research into more scalable, robust, and adaptive routing strategies (Srivatsa et al., 1 May 2024).