LLM Olympiad: Why Model Evaluation Needs a Sealed Exam

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.23292v1
• Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2026 14:55:12 GMT
• Title: LLM Olympiad: Why Model Evaluation Needs a Sealed Exam
• Abstract summary: We argue for an Olympiad-style evaluation event where problems are sealed until evaluation, submissions are frozen in advance, and all entries run through one standardized harness.<n>After scoring, the full task set and evaluation code are released so results can be reproduced and audited.
• Score: 19.58872436367658
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Benchmarks and leaderboards are how NLP most often communicates progress, but in the LLM era they are increasingly easy to misread. Scores can reflect benchmark-chasing, hidden evaluation choices, or accidental exposure to test content -- not just broad capability. Closed benchmarks delay some of these issues, but reduce transparency and make it harder for the community to learn from results. We argue for a complementary practice: an Olympiad-style evaluation event where problems are sealed until evaluation, submissions are frozen in advance, and all entries run through one standardized harness. After scoring, the full task set and evaluation code are released so results can be reproduced and audited. This design aims to make strong performance harder to ``manufacture'' and easier to trust.

Related papers

• Ask, Don't Judge: Binary Questions for Interpretable LLM Evaluation and Self-Improvement [13.774572921429217]
  BINEVAL is a framework that decomposes evaluation criteria into atomic binary questions.<n>Given a task prompt, a meta-prompt generates fine-grained evaluation questions.<n>An LLM answers them independently for each output, yielding transparent question-level feedback.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-25T16:14:50Z)
• LivingArena: Do LLMs Know What Other LLMs Don't? Peer-Probing as Scalable Evaluation [79.03892269184145]
  LivingArena is an automated, contamination-resistant evaluation framework.<n>Models take turns proposing questions, aiming to pose items that opponents cannot answer correctly.<n>Questioners are encouraged to actively identify and exploit opponents' knowledge boundaries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-19T06:20:58Z)
• SEAL: Can Saturated Benchmarks Be Revived by LLM-as-a-Meta-Judge? [26.684941358964704]
  SEAL is a self-improving evaluation protocol for extracting latent ranking signal from saturated benchmarks.<n>We evaluate SEAL on multiple saturated benchmarks covering code generation, mathematical reasoning, knowledge-intensive question answering, and tool-use agent task completion.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-28T15:46:54Z)
• How Much Do Large Language Model Cheat on Evaluation? Benchmarking Overestimation under the One-Time-Pad-Based Framework [8.76693832650115]
  Overestimation in evaluating large language models (LLMs) has become an increasing concern.<n>We propose ArxivRoll, a dynamic evaluation framework inspired by one-time pad encryption in cryptography.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-25T12:39:03Z)
• What Has Been Lost with Synthetic Evaluation? [45.678729819785104]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for data generation.<n>We investigate whether LLMs can meet demands by generating reasoning over-text benchmarks.<n>We show that they are less challenging for LLMs than their human-authored counterparts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-28T20:12:32Z)
• GAMEBoT: Transparent Assessment of LLM Reasoning in Games [54.49589494014147]
  GAMEBoT is a gaming arena designed for rigorous assessment of Large Language Models.<n>We benchmark 17 prominent LLMs across eight games, encompassing various strategic abilities and game characteristics.<n>Our results suggest that GAMEBoT presents a significant challenge, even when LLMs are provided with detailed CoT prompts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-18T08:32:53Z)
• GAOKAO-Eval: Does high scores truly reflect strong capabilities in LLMs? [32.972545797220924]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are commonly evaluated using human-crafted benchmarks.<n> GAOKAO-Eval reveals that high scores still fail to truly reflect human-aligned capabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-13T11:38:10Z)
• 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)
• HelloFresh: LLM Evaluations on Streams of Real-World Human Editorial Actions across X Community Notes and Wikipedia edits [92.62157408704594]
  HelloFresh is based on continuous streams of real-world data generated by intrinsically motivated human labelers. It covers recent events from X (formerly Twitter) community notes and edits of Wikipedia pages. It mitigates the risk of test data contamination and benchmark overfitting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-05T16:25:57Z)
• DnA-Eval: Enhancing Large Language Model Evaluation through Decomposition and Aggregation [75.81096662788254]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are scalable and economical evaluators.<n>The question of how reliable these evaluators are has emerged as a crucial research question.<n>We propose Decompose and Aggregate, which breaks down the evaluation process into different stages based on pedagogical practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-24T08:12:30Z)
• 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.