Provable Joint Decontamination for Benchmarking Multiple Large Language Models
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Benchmark data contamination has become a central challenge in LLM evaluation: when evaluation examples appear in the training data of one or more audited models, reported performance can be inflated and cross-model comparisons become unreliable. A broad line of training-data detection work designs scores to quantify how strongly a model memorizes a given data point, but these score-based methods lack theoretical guarantees. Recent conformal approaches provide provable false-identification control for a single model; however, applying them separately to each model can produce model-specific benchmarks, undermining fair comparison across models. In this work, we formalize multi-model benchmark decontamination as a joint selection problem and propose Joint Envelope Conformal Selection (JECS), a conformal procedure that enables global contamination rate (GCR) control under stated assumptions. Specifically, JECS computes per-model conformal p-values, aggregates them by the per-item maximum, and reconstructs a conservative envelope of the max-p null distribution from right-tail observations above a data-driven threshold. By applying the adaptive Benjamini-Hochberg (BH) procedure to the envelope-rescaled values, we select a benchmark with provable GCR control. Extensive experiments across various models and benchmarks demonstrate that JECS achieves higher power than the max-p baseline while consistently maintaining the target GCR control.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 51 of its 64 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 20 May 2026.
Builds on
51 of 64 references.
References · 51
- 2023GPT-4 Technical Reportcited by 18,396
- 2023LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Modelscited by 14,132
- 2020Scaling Laws for Neural Language Modelscited by 6,586
- 2016Membership Inference Attacks against Machine Learning Modelscited by 2,281
- 2020Extracting Training Data from Large Language Modelscited by 2,189
- 2023Pythia: A Suite for Analyzing Large Language Models Across Training and Scalingcited by 1,786
- 2023A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Modelscited by 1,242
- 2022GPT-NeoX-20B: An Open-Source Autoregressive Language Modelcited by 713
- 2023Detecting Pretraining Data from Large Language Modelscited by 387
- 2023NLP Evaluation in trouble: On the Need to Measure LLM Data Contamination for each Benchmarkcited by 348
- 2020Systematic Evaluation of Privacy Risks of Machine Learning Modelscited by 292
- 2024LiveBench: A Challenging, Contamination-Limited LLM Benchmarkcited by 262
38 more
- 2023Membership Inference Attacks against Language Models via Neighbourhood Comparisoncited by 258
- 2021Enhanced Membership Inference Attacks against Machine Learning Modelscited by 248
- 2023Proving Test Set Contamination in Black Box Language Modelscited by 230
- 2024Leak, Cheat, Repeat: Data Contamination and Evaluation Malpractices in Closed-Source LLMscited by 229
- 2023Rethinking Benchmark and Contamination for Language Models with Rephrased Samplescited by 195
- 2024Do Membership Inference Attacks Work on Large Language Models?cited by 195
- 2023Don't Make Your LLM an Evaluation Benchmark Cheatercited by 194
- 2023Time Travel in LLMs: Tracing Data Contamination in Large Language Modelscited by 177
- 2024Benchmark Data Contamination of Large Language Models: A Surveycited by 147
- 2023Investigating Data Contamination in Modern Benchmarks for Large Language Modelscited by 138
- 2021Testing for Outliers with Conformal p-valuescited by 134
- 2024LLM Dataset Inference: Did you train on my dataset?cited by 110
- 2023DyVal: Dynamic Evaluation of Large Language Models for Reasoning Taskscited by 101
- 2023Task Contamination: Language Models May Not Be Few-Shot Anymorecited by 99
- 2024DE-COP: Detecting Copyrighted Content in Language Models Training Datacited by 74
- 2022Selection by Prediction with Conformal p-valuescited by 69
- 2024ReCaLL: Membership Inference via Relative Conditional Log-Likelihoodscited by 64
- 2023LatestEval: Addressing Data Contamination in Language Model Evaluation through Dynamic and Time-Sensitive Test Constructioncited by 58
- 2024Pretraining Data Detection for Large Language Models: A Divergence-based Calibration Methodcited by 55
- 2024Conformal Alignment: Knowing When to Trust Foundation Models with Guaranteescited by 54
- 2023An Open Source Data Contamination Report for Large Language Modelscited by 51
- 2024MMLU-CF: A Contamination-free Multi-task Language Understanding Benchmarkcited by 41
- 2023Practical Membership Inference Attacks Against Large-Scale Multi-Modal Models: A Pilot Studycited by 38
- 2025A Survey on Data Contamination for Large Language Modelscited by 35
- 2024Membership Inference Attacks against Large Vision-Language Modelscited by 33
- 2023Model-free selective inference under covariate shift via weighted conformal p-valuescited by 29
- 2025Membership Inference Attacks Against Vision-Language Modelscited by 29
- 2024Sampling-based Pseudo-Likelihood for Membership Inference Attackscited by 20
- 2023Koala: An Index for Quantifying Overlaps with Pre-training Corporacited by 19
- 2025How Contaminated Is Your Benchmark? Quantifying Dataset Leakage in Large Language Models with Kernel Divergencecited by 15
- 2024How Much Can We Forget about Data Contamination?cited by 14
- 2023CLEAN-EVAL: Clean Evaluation on Contaminated Large Language Modelscited by 13
- 2024Fine-tuning can Help Detect Pretraining Data from Large Language Modelscited by 8
- 2025Multivariate Conformal Selectioncited by 8
- 2025BeyondBench: Contamination-Resistant Evaluation of Reasoning in Language Modelscited by 8
- 2025Detecting Data Contamination in LLMs via In-Context Learningcited by 8
- 2025Multi-Condition Conformal Selectioncited by 4
- 2026Membership Inference on LLMs in the Wildcited by 3
50 most cited of 51 All 51 (JSON)
Built on by
Not cited yet.