CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 3Topic ModelingAdversarial Robustness in Machine LearningNatural Language Processing Techniques

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Benchmark Inflation: Revealing LLM Performance Gaps Using Retro-Holdouts

Open access
Haimes, Jacob, Wenner, Cenny, Thaman, Kunvar, Tashev, Vassil, Neo, Clement, Kran, Esben, Schreiber, Jason·2024·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2410.09247arXiv 2410.09247
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

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.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2410.09247

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Image 1
CC-BY-SA · From the PDF
Figure 2 Model accuracy on Retro-Misconceptions vs. TruthfulQA (Misconceptions, Non-Adversarial) for multiple pre-release models. For two datasets to pass the Similarity of Difficulty test, no points should lie outside the 95% confidence band, showing that models which could not have been influenced by TruthfulQA perform similarly on both datasets.
Figure 2 Model accuracy on Retro-Misconceptions vs. TruthfulQA (Misconceptions, Non-Adversarial) for multiple pre-release models. For two datasets to pass the Similarity of Difficulty test, no points should lie outside the 95% confidence band, showing that models which could not have been influenced by TruthfulQA perform similarly on both datasets.CC-BY-SA · From the PDF
Figure 3 Example output from the Internal Cosine Similarity Distribution tool. This specific plot indicates that entries within the TARGET were systematically more similar by a small amount, which led the team to further scrutinize word frequencies.
Figure 3 Example output from the Internal Cosine Similarity Distribution tool. This specific plot indicates that entries within the TARGET were systematically more similar by a small amount, which led the team to further scrutinize word frequencies.CC-BY-SA · From the PDF
Figure 4 Model performance gaps on TruthfulQA vs our retroholdout. Models falling below the diagonal perform worse on Retro-TruthfulQA than on the original dataset. Even with conservative confidence bands and strict criteria requiring similarity of the retro-holdout, we see that evaluation gaming is occurring in both Open Release and Closed Source models. An additional visualization of these data is provided in Figure 5.
Figure 4 Model performance gaps on TruthfulQA vs our retroholdout. Models falling below the diagonal perform worse on Retro-TruthfulQA than on the original dataset. Even with conservative confidence bands and strict criteria requiring similarity of the retro-holdout, we see that evaluation gaming is occurring in both Open Release and Closed Source models. An additional visualization of these data is provided in Figure 5.CC-BY-SA · From the PDF
Figure 5 Model performance gaps on TruthfulQA, quantified by the difference in a model's benchmark score on TruthfulQA (Misconceptions, Non-Adversarial), and Retro-Misconceptions. Language model names, including version specifications, are shown on the left of the plot, and Fisher's Exact Test p -values between the models score on Retro-Misconceptions and TruthfulQA are given on the right. Entries marked with * have a p -value less than 0 . 05 . Statistical uncertainty is visualized with 1-sigma error bars.
Figure 5 Model performance gaps on TruthfulQA, quantified by the difference in a model's benchmark score on TruthfulQA (Misconceptions, Non-Adversarial), and Retro-Misconceptions. Language model names, including version specifications, are shown on the left of the plot, and Fisher's Exact Test p -values between the models score on Retro-Misconceptions and TruthfulQA are given on the right. Entries marked with * have a p -value less than 0 . 05 . Statistical uncertainty is visualized with 1-sigma error bars.CC-BY-SA · From the PDF
Figure 7 Example outputs from the Embedding Space Visualization tool. Subplot (a) compares an Retro-Misconceptions with the Non-Adversarial Misconceptions Category of TruthfulQA, while (b) shows a UMAP of entries from the Non-Adversarial portion of TruthfulQA's Law and Sociology Categories.
Figure 7 Example outputs from the Embedding Space Visualization tool. Subplot (a) compares an Retro-Misconceptions with the Non-Adversarial Misconceptions Category of TruthfulQA, while (b) shows a UMAP of entries from the Non-Adversarial portion of TruthfulQA's Law and Sociology Categories.CC-BY-SA · From the PDF

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Research works printed but not linked: 33

  1. N. Alzahrani, H. A. Alyahya, Y. Alnumay, S. Alrashed, S. Alsubaie, Y. Almushaykeh, F. Mirza, N. Alotaibi, N. Alt- wairesh, A. Alowisheq, M. S. Bari, and H. Khan. When Benchmarks are Targets: Revealing the Sensitivity of Large Language Model Leaderboards, Feb. 2024. URL http: //arxiv.org/abs/2402.01781. arXiv:2402.01781 [cs]. · arXiv
  2. J. Bai, S. Bai, Y. Chu, Z. Cui, K. Dang, X. Deng, Y. Fan, W. Ge, Y. Han, F. Huang, B. Hui, L. Ji, M. Li, J. Lin, R. Lin, D. Liu, G. Liu, C. Lu, K. Lu, J. Ma, R. Men, X. Ren, X. Ren, C. Tan, S. Tan, J. Tu, P. Wang, S. Wang, W. Wang, S. Wu, B. Xu, J. Xu, A. Yang, H. Yang, J. Yang, S. Yang, Y. Yao, B. Yu, H. Yuan, Z. Yuan, J. Zhang, X. Zhang, Y. Zhang, Z. Zhang, C. Zhou, J. Zhou, X. Zhou, and T. Zhu. Qwen tech- nical report, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2309.16609.
  3. R. Bommasani, K. Klyman, S. Longpre, S. Kapoor, N. Maslej, B. Xiong, D. Zhang, and P. Liang. The foundation model transparency index. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.12941, 2023. · arXiv
  4. T. B. Brown, B. Mann, N. Ryder, M. Subbiah, J. Kaplan, P. Dhariwal, A. Neelakantan, P. Shyam, G. Sastry, A. Askell, S. Agarwal, A. Herbert-Voss, G. Krueger, T. Henighan, R. Child, A. Ramesh, D. M. Ziegler, J. Wu, C. Win- ter, C. Hesse, M. Chen, E. Sigler, M. Litwin, S. Gray, B. Chess, J. Clark, C. Berner, S. McCandlish, A. Radford, I. Sutskever, and D. Amodei. Language models are few- shot learners, 2020. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2005.14165.
  5. Y. Chang, X. Wang, J. Wang, Y. Wu, L. Yang, K. Zhu, H. Chen, X. Yi, C. Wang, Y. Wang, et al. A survey on evaluation of large language models. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology, 15(3):1-45, 2024.
  6. K. Cobbe, V. Kosaraju, M. Bavarian, M. Chen, H. Jun, L. Kaiser, M. Plappert, J. Tworek, J. Hilton, R. Nakano, C. Hesse, and J. Schulman. Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems, Nov. 2021. URL http://arxiv.org/ abs/2110.14168. · arXiv
  7. G. Cui, L. Yuan, N. Ding, G. Yao, B. He, W. Zhu, Y. Ni, G. Xie, R. Xie, Y. Lin, Z. Liu, and M. Sun. Ultrafeedback: Boosting language models with scaled ai feedback, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.01377. · arXiv
  8. F. K. Dankar and M. Ibrahim. Fake It Till You Make It: Guidelines for Effective Synthetic Data Generation. Ap- plied Sciences, 11(5):2158, Jan. 2021. ISSN 2076-3417. doi: 10.3390/app11052158. URL https://www.mdpi. com/2076-3417/11/5/2158. Number: 5 Publisher: Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute. · DOI
  9. C. Deng, Y. Zhao, X. Tang, M. Gerstein, and A. Cohan. Investigating Data Contamination in Modern Benchmarks for Large Language Models, Apr. 2024. URL http://arxiv. org/abs/2311.09783. arXiv:2311.09783 [cs]. · arXiv
  10. M. Dwass. Modified Randomization Tests for Nonparametric Hypotheses. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 28(1): 181 -187, 1957. doi: 10.1214/aoms/1177707045. URL https://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177707045. · DOI
  11. S. Golchin and M. Surdeanu. Time travel in llms: Tracing data contamination in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.08493, 2023. · arXiv
  12. C. A. Goodhart. Problems of monetary management: the UK experience. Springer, 1984.
  13. J. Hemerik. On the Term "Randomization Test". The American Statistician, pages 1-8, Mar. 2024. ISSN 0003-1305, 1537-2731. doi: 10.1080/00031305.2024. 2319182. URL https://www.tandfonline.com/ doi/full/10.1080/00031305.2024.2319182. · DOI
  14. G. James, D. Witten, T. Hastie, R. Tibshirani, and J. Taylor. An Introduction to Statistical Learning: with Applications in Python. Springer Texts in Statistics. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2023. ISBN 978-3-031-38746-3 978-3-031-38747-0. doi: 10.1007/ 978-3-031-38747-0. URL https://link.springer. com/10.1007/978-3-031-38747-0. · DOI
  15. M. Jiang, K. Z. Liu, M. Zhong, R. Schaeffer, S. Ouyang, J. Han, and S. Koyejo. Investigating Data Contamination for Pre-training Language Models, Jan. 2024. URL http: //arxiv.org/abs/2401.06059. arXiv:2401.06059 [cs]. · arXiv
  16. J. Karwowski, O. Hayman, X. Bai, K. Kiendlhofer, C. Griffin, and J. Skalse. Goodhart's law in reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.09144, 2023. · arXiv
  17. Y. Li, F. Guerin, and C. Lin. Latesteval: Addressing data con- tamination in language model evaluation through dynamic and time-sensitive test construction. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, pages 18600-18607, 2024.
  18. S. Lin, J. Hilton, and O. Evans. TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human Falsehoods, May 2022. URL http: //arxiv.org/abs/2109.07958. arXiv:2109.07958 [cs]. · arXiv
  19. L. McInnes, J. Healy, and J. Melville. UMAP: Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection for Dimension Re- duction, Feb. 2018. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 1802.03426v3.
  20. H. Naveed, A. U. Khan, S. Qiu, M. Saqib, S. Anwar, M. Us- man, N. Akhtar, N. Barnes, and A. Mian. A compre- hensive overview of large language models, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.06435. · arXiv
  21. Y. Oren, N. Meister, N. Chatterji, F. Ladhak, and T. B. Hashimoto. Proving Test Set Contamination in Black Box Language Models, Nov. 2023. URL http://arxiv. org/abs/2310.17623. arXiv:2310.17623 [cs]. · arXiv
  22. N. Reimers and I. Gurevych. Sentence-bert: Sentence em- beddings using siamese bert-networks. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Lan- guage Processing. Association for Computational Linguis- tics, 11 2019. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1908. 10084.
  23. O. Sainz, J. A. Campos, I. García-Ferrero, J. Etxaniz, O. L. de Lacalle, and E. Agirre. Nlp evaluation in trouble: On the need to measure llm data contamination for each benchmark. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.18018, 2023. · arXiv
  24. O. Sainz, I. García-Ferrero, J. Ander, Y. Elazar, and E. Agirre. CONDA 2024 | The 1st Workshop on Data Contamination, 2024. URL https://conda-workshop.github. io/.
  25. N. Sambasivan, S. Kapania, H. Highfill, D. Akrong, P. Par- itosh, and L. M. Aroyo. "everyone wants to do the model work, not the data work": Data cascades in high-stakes ai. In proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 1-15, 2021.
  26. R. Schaeffer. Pretraining on the Test Set Is All You Need, Sept. 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2309. 08632v1.
  27. S. Shalev-Shwartz and S. Ben-David. Understanding Ma- chine Learning -From Theory to Algorithms. Cambridge University Press, 2014. ISBN 978-1-10-705713-5.
  28. W. Shi, A. Ajith, M. Xia, Y. Huang, D. Liu, T. Blevins, D. Chen, and L. Zettlemoyer. Detecting Pretraining Data from Large Language Models, Nov. 2023. URL http: //arxiv.org/abs/2310.16789. arXiv:2310.16789 [cs]. · arXiv
  29. M. Strathern. 'improving ratings': audit in the british univer- sity system. European review, 5(3):305-321, 1997.
  30. R. Thomas and D. Uminsky. The problem with met- rics is a fundamental problem for ai. arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.08512, 2020. · arXiv
  31. H. Zhang, J. Da, D. Lee, V. Robinson, C. Wu, W. Song, T. Zhao, P. Raja, D. Slack, Q. Lyu, S. Hendryx, R. Ka- plan, M. Lunati, and S. Yue. A Careful Examination of Large Language Model Performance on Grade School Arith- metic, May 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2405.00332v3.
  32. W. X. Zhao, K. Zhou, J. Li, T. Tang, X. Wang, Y. Hou, Y. Min, B. Zhang, J. Zhang, Z. Dong, Y. Du, C. Yang, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, J. Jiang, R. Ren, Y. Li, X. Tang, Z. Liu, P. Liu, J.-Y. Nie, and J.-R. Wen. A survey of large language models, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.18223. · arXiv
  33. C. Zheng, H. Zhou, F. Meng, J. Zhou, and M. Huang. Large Language Models Are Not Robust Multiple Choice Selec- tors, Feb. 2024. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2309. 03882. arXiv:2309.03882 [cs]. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Haimes, J., Wenner, C., Thaman, K., Tashev, V., Neo, C., Kran, E., & Schreiber, J.
ORCID
Kran, Esben
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2410.09247
arXiv
2410.09247
OpenAlex
W4403564508
Cited by
3
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
Keywords
large language models, training data contamination, benchmark validity, TruthfulQA, statistical indistinguishability, LLM evaluation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review