# Peeking Behind Closed Doors: Risks of LLM Evaluation by Private Data Curators

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.04756 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.04756/

## Key facts

- Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 11 of its 21 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 9 Feb 2025.

## Builds on (most cited first, 11 of 11)

- [Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.14168/) (2021)
- [Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.03300/) (2020)
- [MMLU-Pro: A More Robust and Challenging Multi-Task Language Understanding Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.01574/) (2024)
- [Do ImageNet Classifiers Generalize to ImageNet?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1902.10811/) (2019)
- [AlpacaFarm: A Simulation Framework for Methods that Learn from Human Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14387/) (2023)
- [LLM Evaluators Recognize and Favor Their Own Generations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.13076/) (2024)
- [GSM-Symbolic: Understanding the Limitations of Mathematical Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.05229/) (2024)
- [NLP Evaluation in trouble: On the Need to Measure LLM Data Contamination for each Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.18018/) (2023)
- [A Careful Examination of Large Language Model Performance on Grade School Arithmetic](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.00332/) (2024)
- [Generalization or Memorization: Data Contamination and Trustworthy Evaluation for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.15938/) (2024)
- [Not All LLM Reasoners Are Created Equal](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.01748/) (2024)

## Built on by (most cited first, 2 of 2)

- [BIG-Bench Extra Hard](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.19187/) (2025)
- [IBIB: A Protocol for Measuring Enterprise AI Systems by Serving Route, Not Model Identifier](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.10494/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

The rapid advancement in building large language models (LLMs) has intensified competition among big-tech companies and AI startups. In this regard, model evaluations are critical for product and investment-related decision-making. While open evaluation sets like MMLU initially drove progress, concerns around data contamination and data bias have constantly questioned their reliability. As a result, it has led to the rise of private data curators who have begun conducting hidden evaluations with high-quality self-curated test prompts and their own expert annotators. In this paper, we argue that despite potential advantages in addressing contamination issues, private evaluations introduce inadvertent financial and evaluation risks. In particular, the key concerns include the potential conflict of interest arising from private data curators' business relationships with their clients (leading LLM firms). In addition, we highlight that the subjective preferences of private expert annotators will lead to inherent evaluation bias towards the models trained with the private curators' data. Overall, this paper lays the foundation for studying the risks of private evaluations that can lead to wide-ranging community discussions and policy changes.