Introduction to Adaptive Testing for LLM Evaluation

Welcome! If you’re just discovering Trismik or considering how adaptive testing could help in evaluating your large language models (LLMs), this is the best place to start.

This article is intended as a gentle introduction: we’ll look at how model evaluation is often done today, the disadvantages of those approaches, and how adaptive testing can provide a smarter alternative. Later articles will take you deeper into how item banks are built and what our experiments show in practice.

The Old Ways: Fixed-Form and Convenience Sampling

Traditionally, LLM evaluations have relied on two main approaches:

• Fixed-form (classical) testing: This means giving every model the same static benchmark, often thousands of questions, delivered in a fixed order. It’s thorough and makes comparisons straightforward, but also inefficient and costly. Models waste cycles on items that are far too easy or impossibly hard, and you end up paying for every one of them.

• Convenience sampling: This is the shortcut: grab a smaller subset of questions, sometimes at random, and use it as a proxy for performance. It’s faster and cheaper, but risky. You might get lucky and pick a representative set — or you might end up with misleading results because the sample doesn’t cover the full spectrum of difficulty.

Neither approach is ideal. One is slow and wasteful, the other is quick but unreliable. Other modes of testing exist too, but these two dominate in practice.

Adaptive Testing: A Smarter Path

Adaptive testing (often called computerized adaptive testing, or CAT) offers a middle way. Instead of asking all the questions or a random handful, it chooses each new item based on the model’s previous responses.

• If the model gets an item right, the system typically serves up a harder one.
• If it gets an item wrong, the system shifts toward an easier one.
• The process continues until the model’s ability is measured with a fixed level of confidence.

Behind the scenes, the system is estimating a single number often called θ (theta), a latent “ability score” for the model. Each new item updates this estimate, and the test continues until the uncertainty (standard error) around θ is small enough that we can be confident in the result.

This means every item in the test is there for a reason: it’s maximally informative about that model’s skill level.

Think of it like a language oral exam. If you breeze through the beginner questions, the examiner doesn’t keep you there, they move you up to advanced material. Adaptive testing does the same, only faster and more systematically.

The Foundation: Calibrated Item Banks

For adaptive testing to work, we need calibrated item banks, question pools where each item has a known difficulty level.

We create these by calibrating benchmark datasets like MMLU-Pro, OpenBookQA, and PIQA. That process involves:

• Standardizing formats so different datasets can be combined.
• Balancing items across easy, medium, and hard levels.
• Filtering out low-quality or ambiguous questions.

If you’d like to see this process in action, check out our Upcycling Datasets for LLM Evaluation blog post.

How Adaptive Testing Works in Practice

Here’s what happens when a model takes an adaptive test on our platform:

1. Start point – The test begins with a mid-level item.
2. Response check – The model’s answer is scored.
3. Ability update – The θ estimate shifts up or down.
4. Smart selection – The next item is chosen to be maximally informative about θ.
5. Stopping rule – The test ends when the standard error around θ is sufficiently low, or a max length is reached.
6. Final report – You receive an ability score, confidence interval, and insights tied back to benchmark skills.

The key difference: instead of running thousands of fixed items, an adaptive test might need only a few dozen to reach the same precision.

So What’s Your θ?

To make all of this more concrete, let’s walk through a mini adaptive test.

Each row shows the question asked, how the model responded, the updated θ estimate, and the shrinking standard error (our measure of uncertainty).

Step	Item Difficulty	Model Response	θ Estimate (ability)	Standard Error (uncertainty)
Q1	Medium (0.0)	Correct	0.0 → +0.3	0.90
Q2	Hard (+0.7)	Incorrect	+0.3 → +0.1	0.70
Q3	Medium (+0.2)	Correct	+0.1 → +0.4	0.50
Q4	Hard (+0.8)	Correct	+0.4 → +0.7	0.40
Q5	Very Hard (+1.2)	Incorrect	+0.7 → +0.6	0.30
Q6	Hard (+0.8)	Correct	+0.6 → +0.7	0.25

By Q6, the system is confident:

• The model’s ability score (θ) has stabilized around +0.7.
• The uncertainty (standard error) is low enough to stop the test.

Instead of answering hundreds of items, the model only needed a handful before we reached a trustworthy result.

Why Adaptive Testing Matters

For AI scientists, adaptive testing can offer:

• Efficiency – fewer items, faster evaluation cycles.
• Cost savings – less compute wasted on uninformative items.
• Precision – defined confidence intervals with fewer questions.
• Scalability – works across multiple benchmarks and domains.

In practice, this means you can evaluate models more often, at lower cost, and with more trustworthy results.

Challenges and Trade-offs

Like any method, adaptive testing comes with pros and cons:

• Difficulty drift – items that were once hard may become easy as LLMs improve over time.
• Domain mismatch – banks may over-represent certain skills.
• Cold start – new banks need calibration data before they can be used for adaptive testing.
• Latency – item selection must be fast enough for live evaluations.
• Scoring approaches – today we use calibrated items, but new methods (like using LLM- as-a-judge) may complement or extend this in the future.

We design our system to manage these trade-offs, with periodic recalibration and safeguards to keep results robust.

What’s Next?

This introduction gives you the intuition for why adaptive testing matters. From here, you can explore:

• Upcycling Datasets for LLM Evaluation – how we prepare adaptive-ready item banks.
• Adaptive Testing Experiments – real-world results comparing adaptive to static testing.

Key Takeaways

• Classical testing is comprehensive but wasteful.
• Convenience sampling is cheap but risky.
• Adaptive testing learns as it goes, choosing only the most informative questions.
• It builds on calibrated item banks created by calibrating benchmarks.
• Behind the scenes, adaptive testing estimates a latent θ (ability score) and tracks its uncertainty (standard error) until results are reliable.

Looking ahead: adaptive testing is one part of a broader evaluation toolkit. New methods such as LLM-as-a-judge scoring, may complement item-based approaches in the future, giving AI scientists more options for efficient and trustworthy evaluation.

---

Next step: dive into how we build item banks through upcycling datasets, or skip ahead to adaptive testing experiments to see results in action.