Evaluates a distributed multi-agent routing system's ability to autonomously assign queries to the most appropriate LLM based on intrinsic self-assessment. It probes the trade-off between routing accuracy and inference cost across diverse mathematical, commonsense, and reading comprehension benchmarks. Use when the user wants to benchmark on GSM8K, ARC, MMLU, RACE_HIGH, OpenbookQA, DROP, CosmosQA, SQuAD, HellaSwag, HeadQA, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports utility.
Scanned 9/11/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add qhjqhj00/research-skills-pool --skill disrouter-routing-eval --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Disrouter Routing Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-disrouter-routing-eval)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: disrouter-routing-eval
description: Evaluates a distributed multi-agent routing system's ability to autonomously assign queries to the most appropriate LLM based on intrinsic self-assessment. It probes the trade-off between routing accuracy and inference cost across diverse mathematical, commonsense, and reading comprehension benchmarks. Use when the user wants to benchmark on GSM8K, ARC, MMLU, RACE_HIGH, OpenbookQA, DROP, CosmosQA, SQuAD, HellaSwag, HeadQA, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports utility.
metadata:
skill_kind: dataset_eval
source_arxiv: 2510.19208
bibtex_key: zheng2025disrouter
confidence: high
---
# disrouter-routing-eval
> DiSRouter: Distributed Self-Routing for LLM Selections — Zheng et al. (2025) (arXiv:2510.19208, 2025)
## What this evaluates
Evaluates a distributed multi-agent routing system's ability to autonomously assign queries to the most appropriate LLM based on intrinsic self-assessment. It probes the trade-off between routing accuracy and inference cost across diverse mathematical, commonsense, and reading comprehension benchmarks.
## Datasets
- **GSM8K** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **ARC** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **MMLU** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **RACE_HIGH** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **OpenbookQA** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **DROP** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **CosmosQA** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **SQuAD** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **HellaSwag** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **HeadQA** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
## Metrics
- `accuracy` — range: [0, 1]
- Standard exact-match or option-matching accuracy computed per dataset. Averaged across datasets for final reporting.
- `cost` — range: [0, 1]
- Average normalized inference cost of the routed models per query. Each model is assigned a fixed normalized cost between 0 and 1 based on its size.
- `utility` **(primary)** — range: [0, 1]
- A tunable weighted metric balancing accuracy and cost, controlled by a global preference factor α. Higher α prioritizes cost reduction, while lower α prioritizes accuracy.
## Input / output format
**Input**: Natural language query or task prompt from the benchmark dataset, evaluated in a zero-shot Chain-of-Thought manner.
**Output**: Routing decision specifying which LLM from the pool handles the query, followed by the LLM's generated response or a rejection signal.
## Scoring recipe
```python
def compute_metrics(predictions, routing_decisions, golds, model_costs, alpha):
acc = sum(1 for p, g in zip(predictions, golds) if is_correct(p, g)) / len(golds)
cost = sum(model_costs[m] for m in routing_decisions) / len(golds)
utility = alpha * acc + (1 - alpha) * (1 - cost)
return acc, cost, utility
```
## Common pitfalls
- Uses validation sets as test sets for benchmarks with hidden test splits (e.g., GSM8K, MMLU), which may inflate or deflate reported accuracy compared to official leaderboards.
- Cost is a normalized fixed value per model rather than actual latency or token usage, making cross-system cost comparisons sensitive to the normalization scheme.
- The utility metric is highly sensitive to the global preference factor α; results reported for one α value do not generalize to other scenarios without re-evaluation.
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> We evaluate LLMs in a zero-shot Chain-of-Thought (CoT, Wei et al., [2022]) manner and use accuracy as the evaluation metric for all these datasets. To evaluate the overall routing performance, we utilize the utility metric introduced in §[2.1], Equation ([2]), which can be adjusted for different scenarios by setting a corresponding value for α.
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{zheng2025disrouter,
title={DiSRouter: Distributed Self-Routing for LLM Selections},
author={Zheng et al. (2025)},
year={2025},
note={arXiv:2510.19208}
}
```
- arXiv: 2510.19208
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!