How Can I Publish My LLM Benchmark Without Giving the True Answers Away?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.18102v3
• Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2025 07:08:52 GMT
• Title: How Can I Publish My LLM Benchmark Without Giving the True Answers Away?
• Authors: Takashi Ishida, Thanawat Lodkaew, Ikko Yamane,
• Abstract summary: Publishing a large language model (LLM) benchmark on the Internet risks contaminating future LLMs.<n>A common mitigation is to keep the benchmark private and let participants submit their models or predictions to the organizers.<n>We propose a way to publish benchmarks without completely disclosing the ground-truth answers to the questions.
• Score: 6.854732863866882
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Publishing a large language model (LLM) benchmark on the Internet risks contaminating future LLMs: the benchmark may be unintentionally (or intentionally) used to train or select a model. A common mitigation is to keep the benchmark private and let participants submit their models or predictions to the organizers. However, this strategy will require trust in a single organization and still permits test-set overfitting through repeated queries. To overcome this issue, we propose a way to publish benchmarks without completely disclosing the ground-truth answers to the questions, while still maintaining the ability to openly evaluate LLMs. Our main idea is to inject randomness to the answers by preparing several logically correct answers, and only include one of them as the solution in the benchmark. This reduces the best possible accuracy, i.e., Bayes accuracy, of the benchmark. Not only is this helpful to keep us from disclosing the ground truth, but this approach also offers a test for detecting data contamination. In principle, even fully capable models should not surpass the Bayes accuracy. If a model surpasses this ceiling despite this expectation, this is a strong signal of data contamination. We present experimental evidence that our method can detect data contamination accurately on a wide range of benchmarks, models, and training methodologies.

Related papers

• Do Large Language Model Benchmarks Test Reliability? [66.1783478365998]
  We investigate how well current benchmarks quantify model reliability.<n>Motivated by this gap in the evaluation of reliability, we propose the concept of so-called platinum benchmarks.<n>We evaluate a wide range of models on these platinum benchmarks and find that, indeed, frontier LLMs still exhibit failures on simple tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-05T18:58:19Z)
• MMLU-CF: A Contamination-free Multi-task Language Understanding Benchmark [57.999567012489706]
  We propose a contamination-free and more challenging benchmark called MMLU-CF.<n>This benchmark reassesses LLMs' understanding of world knowledge by averting both unintentional and malicious data leakage.<n>Our evaluation of mainstream LLMs reveals that the powerful GPT-4o achieves merely a 5-shot score of 73.4% and a 0-shot score of 71.9% on the test set.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-19T18:58:04Z)
• Training on the Benchmark Is Not All You Need [52.01920740114261]
  We propose a simple and effective data leakage detection method based on the contents of multiple-choice options.<n>Our method is able to work under gray-box conditions without access to model training data or weights.<n>We evaluate the degree of data leakage of 35 mainstream open-source LLMs on four benchmark datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-03T11:09:44Z)
• PaCoST: Paired Confidence Significance Testing for Benchmark Contamination Detection in Large Language Models [41.772263447213234]
  Large language models (LLMs) are known to be trained on vast amounts of data, which may unintentionally or intentionally include data from commonly used benchmarks.<n>This inclusion can lead to cheatingly high scores on model leaderboards, yet result in disappointing performance in real-world applications.<n>We introduce PaCoST, a Paired Confidence Significance Testing to effectively detect benchmark contamination in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-26T13:12:40Z)
• Inference-Time Decontamination: Reusing Leaked Benchmarks for Large Language Model Evaluation [61.350306618479365]
  Leakage of benchmarks can prevent the accurate assessment of large language models' true performance. We propose Inference-Time Decontamination (ITD) to address this issue. ITD reduces inflated accuracy by 22.9% on GSM8K and 19.0% on MMLU.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T04:35:59Z)
• Investigating Data Contamination in Modern Benchmarks for Large Language Models [27.479260572913724]
  Recent observations have underscored a disparity between the inflated benchmark scores and the actual performance of LLMs. We study data contamination by proposing two methods tailored for both open-source and proprietary LLMs. We find that certain commercial LLMs could surprisingly guess the missing option in various test sets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T11:03:04Z)
• Rethinking Benchmark and Contamination for Language Models with Rephrased Samples [49.18977581962162]
  Large language models are increasingly trained on all the data ever produced by humans. Many have raised concerns about the trustworthiness of public benchmarks due to potential contamination in pre-training or fine-tuning datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-08T17:35:20Z)
• LLMs as Factual Reasoners: Insights from Existing Benchmarks and Beyond [135.8013388183257]
  We propose a new protocol for inconsistency detection benchmark creation and implement it in a 10-domain benchmark called SummEdits. Most LLMs struggle on SummEdits, with performance close to random chance. The best-performing model, GPT-4, is still 8% below estimated human performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T21:50:06Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.