# Simulating Training Data Leakage in Multiple-Choice Benchmarks for LLM Evaluation

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.24263 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.24263/

## Key facts

- Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 18 of its 26 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 30 May 2025.

## Builds on (most cited first, 18 of 18)

- [Language Models are Few-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.14165/) (2020)
- [The Llama 3 Herd of Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21783/) (2024)
- [LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.09685/) (2021)
- [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)
- [Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.03874/) (2021)
- [HellaSwag: Can a Machine Really Finish Your Sentence?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1905.07830/) (2019)
- [TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human Falsehoods](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.07958/) (2021)
- [PIQA: Reasoning about Physical Commonsense in Natural Language](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1911.11641/) (2019)
- [BoolQ: Exploring the Surprising Difficulty of Natural Yes/No Questions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1905.10044/) (2019)
- [MMLU-Pro: A More Robust and Challenging Multi-Task Language Understanding Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.01574/) (2024)
- [Data Contamination: From Memorization to Exploitation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.08242/) (2022)
- [Leak, Cheat, Repeat: Data Contamination and Evaluation Malpractices in Closed-Source LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.03927/) (2024)
- [Leveraging Large Language Models for Multiple Choice Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.12353/) (2022)
- [Are We Done with MMLU?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.04127/) (2024)
- [Estimating Contamination via Perplexity: Quantifying Memorisation in Language Model Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.10677/) (2023)
- [Does Data Contamination Detection Work (Well) for LLMs? A Survey and Evaluation on Detection Assumptions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.18966/) (2024)
- [Towards Data Contamination Detection for Modern Large Language Models: Limitations, Inconsistencies, and Oracle Challenges](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.09927/) (2024)

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

- [STEM: Efficient Relative Capability Evaluation of LLMs through Structured Transition Samples](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.12096/) (2025)
- [Uncheatable Eval: Dynamic Compression-Based Evaluation of Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.27510/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

The performance of large language models (LLMs) continues to improve, as reflected in rising scores on standard benchmarks. However, the lack of transparency around training data raises concerns about potential overlap with evaluation sets and the fairness of reported results. Although prior work has proposed methods for detecting data leakage, these approaches primarily focus on identifying outliers and have not been evaluated under controlled simulated leakage conditions. In this work, we compare existing leakage detection techniques, namely permutation and n-gram-based methods, under a continual pretraining setup that simulates real-world leakage scenarios, and additionally explore a lightweight method we call semi-half question. Although semi-half offers a low-cost alternative, our analysis shows that the n-gram method consistently achieves the highest F1-score. We also refine these techniques to support instance-level detection and reduce computational overhead. Leveraging the best-performing method, we create cleaned versions of MMLU and HellaSwag, and re-evaluate several LLMs. Our findings present a practical path toward more reliable and transparent evaluations, and we recommend contamination checks as a standard step before releasing benchmark results.