Silicon Bureaucracy and AI Test-Oriented Education: Contamination Sensitivity and Score Confidence in LLM Benchmarks

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.21636v2
• Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2026 13:56:31 GMT
• Title: Silicon Bureaucracy and AI Test-Oriented Education: Contamination Sensitivity and Score Confidence in LLM Benchmarks
• Abstract summary: We propose an audit framework for analyzing contamination sensitivity and score confidence in language models.<n>We find widespread but heterogeneous above-baseline gains under noisy conditions.<n>These results suggest that similar benchmark scores may carry substantially different levels of confidence.
• Score: 43.45152572188735
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Public benchmarks increasingly govern how large language models (LLMs) are ranked, selected, and deployed. We frame this benchmark-centered regime as Silicon Bureaucracy and AI Test-Oriented Education, and argue that it rests on a fragile assumption: that benchmark scores directly reflect genuine generalization. In practice, however, such scores may conflate exam-oriented competence with principled capability, especially when contamination and semantic leakage are difficult to exclude from modern training pipelines. We therefore propose an audit framework for analyzing contamination sensitivity and score confidence in LLM benchmarks. Using a router-worker setup, we compare a clean-control condition with noisy conditions in which benchmark problems are systematically deleted, rewritten, and perturbed before being passed downstream. For a genuinely clean benchmark, noisy conditions should not consistently outperform the clean-control baseline. Yet across multiple models, we find widespread but heterogeneous above-baseline gains under noisy conditions, indicating that benchmark-related cues may be reassembled and can reactivate contamination-related memory. These results suggest that similar benchmark scores may carry substantially different levels of confidence. Rather than rejecting benchmarks altogether, we argue that benchmark-based evaluation should be supplemented with explicit audits of contamination sensitivity and score confidence.

Related papers

• The Double Measurement Confound in Agent Benchmarks: De-Scaffolding, Ground-Truth Scoring, and Reliability Beyond the Mean [2.822987192839875]
  Agent benchmarks are increasingly used to compare large language models (LLMs) and guide deployment decisions.<n>We identify a double measurement confound: execution-critical decisions are performed by a fixed scaffold instead of the model, while the scorer evaluates outputs using criteria that may not reflect task correctness.<n>We unify these issues within a measurement-theoretic framework that characterizes when benchmark scores can be interpreted as evidence of model capability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-06T21:23:11Z)
• Benchmarking the Benchmarks: Evaluating Benchmarks for Conversational Agents [3.6300043516541263]
  Poor benchmarks may contain inconsistent tasks, simplistic scenarios, or limited policy coverage.<n>We introduce a reference-free framework that uses LLM judges to assess benchmark consistency, complexity, and policy coverage.<n>Our framework offers a practical approach for evaluating synthetic and manually curated conversational-agent benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-06T17:39:21Z)
• Navigating the Sea of LLM Evaluation: Investigating Bias in Toxicity Benchmarks [0.36748639131154315]
  This work investigates the robustness of established benchmarking setups and examines how to measure intrinsic biases.<n>Our experiments uncover significant discrepancies in benchmark behaviors when evaluation setups are altered.<n>We observe model-specific instabilities, demonstrating a clear need for more robust and comprehensive safety evaluation frameworks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-11T14:27:39Z)
• DeepFact: Co-Evolving Benchmarks and Agents for Deep Research Factuality [49.62610727661819]
  Existing fact-checkers are primarily designed for general-domain, factoid-style atomic claims.<n>We propose Audit-then-Score (AtS), where benchmark labels and rationales are explicitly revisable.<n>We instantiate AtS as DeepFact-Bench, a versioned DRR factuality benchmark with auditable rationales.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-06T05:05:57Z)
• When Benchmarks Leak: Inference-Time Decontamination for LLMs [4.071875179293035]
  DeconIEP operates entirely during evaluation by applying small, bounded perturbations in the input embedding space.<n>We propose DeconIEP, a decontamination framework that operates entirely during evaluation by applying small, bounded perturbations in the input embedding space.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-27T08:19:40Z)
• Benchmark^2: Systematic Evaluation of LLM Benchmarks [66.2731798872668]
  We propose Benchmark2, a comprehensive framework comprising three complementary metrics.<n>We conduct experiments across 15 benchmarks spanning mathematics, reasoning, and knowledge domains.<n>Our analysis reveals significant quality variations among existing benchmarks and demonstrates that selective benchmark construction can achieve comparable evaluation performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-07T14:59:03Z)
• When Judgment Becomes Noise: How Design Failures in LLM Judge Benchmarks Silently Undermine Validity [21.192000569821943]
  We argue that without tight objectives and verifiable constructions, benchmark rankings can produce high-confidence rankings that are in fact largely noise.<n>We show that the ELO-style aggregation used by Arena-Hard Auto collapses and masks genuine ranking uncertainty.<n>Our results highlight design failures that undermine validity and offer actionable principles for building better-scoped, reliability-aware benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-24T16:26:47Z)
• SVeritas: Benchmark for Robust Speaker Verification under Diverse Conditions [54.34001921326444]
  Speaker verification (SV) models are increasingly integrated into security, personalization, and access control systems.<n>Existing benchmarks evaluate only subsets of these conditions, missing others entirely.<n>We introduce SVeritas, a comprehensive Speaker Verification tasks benchmark suite, assessing SV systems under stressors like recording duration, spontaneity, content, noise, microphone distance, reverberation, channel mismatches, audio bandwidth, codecs, speaker age, and susceptibility to spoofing and adversarial attacks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-21T14:11:16Z)
• Fluid Language Model Benchmarking [126.92394365620525]
  We introduce Fluid Benchmarking, a new evaluation approach that advances LM benchmarking across multiple dimensions.<n>Inspired by psychometrics, Fluid Benchmarking is based on the insight that the relative value of benchmark items depends on an LM's capability level.<n>We examine four dimensions -- efficiency, validity, variance, and saturation -- and find that Fluid Benchmarking achieves superior performance in all of them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-14T05:49:42Z)
• 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)
• Don't Make Your LLM an Evaluation Benchmark Cheater [142.24553056600627]
  Large language models(LLMs) have greatly advanced the frontiers of artificial intelligence, attaining remarkable improvement in model capacity. To assess the model performance, a typical approach is to construct evaluation benchmarks for measuring the ability level of LLMs. We discuss the potential risk and impact of inappropriately using evaluation benchmarks and misleadingly interpreting the evaluation results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-03T14:59:54Z)
• What Will it Take to Fix Benchmarking in Natural Language Understanding? [30.888416756627155]
  We lay out four criteria that we argue NLU benchmarks should meet. Restoring a healthy evaluation ecosystem will require significant progress in the design of benchmark datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-05T20:36:11Z)

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.