REVIEW 2 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
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.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Temporal Leakage in LLM Backtesting: Measurement, Validation, and Adjusted Scores
The standard pre/post cutoff check cannot separate memorization from recency, and a single external reference is needed to measure and adjust for temporal leakage.
-
Beyond Success Rate: Cost-Aware Evaluation of Offensive and Defensive Security Agents
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.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.