Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

Benchmark Inflation: Revealing LLM Performance Gaps Using Retro-Holdouts

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2410.09247 v1 pith:6OYI7A3L submitted 2024-10-11 cs.LG cs.AIcs.CL

classification cs.LGcs.AIcs.CL
keywords datasetllmsscoresbenchmarkdatadatasetsperformancepublic
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

The training data for many Large Language Models (LLMs) is contaminated with test data. This means that public benchmarks used to assess LLMs are compromised, suggesting a performance gap between benchmark scores and actual capabilities. Ideally, a private holdout set could be used to accurately verify scores. Unfortunately, such datasets do not exist for most benchmarks, and post-hoc construction of sufficiently similar datasets is non-trivial. To address these issues, we introduce a systematic methodology for (i) retrospectively constructing a holdout dataset for a target dataset, (ii) demonstrating the statistical indistinguishability of this retro-holdout dataset, and (iii) comparing LLMs on the two datasets to quantify the performance gap due to the dataset's public availability. Applying these methods to TruthfulQA, we construct and release Retro-Misconceptions, on which we evaluate twenty LLMs and find that some have inflated scores by as much as 16 percentage points. Our results demonstrate that public benchmark scores do not always accurately assess model properties, and underscore the importance of improved data practices in the field.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Unsteady Metrics and Benchmarking Cultures of AI Model Builders

    cs.AI 2026-05 accept novelty 8.0 of 10

    AI model builders mostly highlight unique benchmarks that act as flexible narrative tools for market positioning rather than standardized scientific measurements.

  2. Reward Hacking Benchmark: Measuring Exploits in LLM Agents with Tool Use

    cs.LG 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    The Reward Hacking Benchmark shows RL post-training raises exploit rates in tool-using LLM agents from 0.6% to 13.9%, with environmental hardening cutting exploits by 87.7% relative without lowering task success.

  3. Beyond Success Rate: Cost-Aware Evaluation of Offensive and Defensive Security Agents

    cs.CR 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Security-agent success changes differently with budget: offensive CTF tasks improve with more compute, while defensive SOC work depends more on tool discipline than spend.

Pith tools