No Single Best Model for Diversity: Learning a Router for Sample Diversity

Yuhan Liu, Fangyuan Xu, Vishakh Padmakumar, Daphne Ippolito, Eunsol Choi · Apr 2, 2026 · Citations: 0

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

When posed with prompts that permit a large number of valid answers, comprehensively generating them is the first step towards satisfying a wide range of users. In this paper, we study methods to elicit a comprehensive set of valid responses. To evaluate this, we introduce \textbf{diversity coverage}, a metric that measures the total quality scores assigned to each \textbf{unique} answer in the predicted answer set relative to the best possible answer set with the same number of answers. Using this metric, we evaluate 18 LLMs, finding no single model dominates at generating diverse responses to a wide range of open-ended prompts. Yet, per each prompt, there exists a model that outperforms all other models significantly at generating a diverse answer set. Motivated by this finding, we introduce a router that predicts the best model for each query. On NB-Wildchat, our trained router outperforms the single best model baseline (26.3% vs $23.8%). We further show generalization to an out-of-domain dataset (NB-Curated) as well as different answer-generation prompting strategies. Our work lays foundation for studying generating comprehensive answers when we have access to a suite of models.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
The abstract does not clearly describe the evaluation setup.
The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 15%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.