Zero Gap Is Not Restoration: Stratified Per-Question Probability Evaluation and Step-wise Mitigation of Benchmark Contamination
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Test data from public benchmarks inevitably leaks into pretraining corpora, inflating evaluation scores once memorized. Contamination mitigation evaluation intervenes in the decoding process to suppress memorization and restore a contaminated model's genuine capability, but its prevailing metric, the G-AP (Gap of Aggregate Performance), is flawed. Discrete correct/incorrect readouts cannot characterize per-question performance, averaging before differencing lets over- and under-suppression cancel out, and uniform per-question weighting invites strategies to push solve probabilities onto the clean model's high-frequency values. We propose SA-PPG (Stratified Aggregate of Per-question Probability Gaps): estimate each question's solve probability by sampling, difference it against the clean model per question, and aggregate within groups defined by the clean model's solve probability. Existing mitigation strategies first estimate where contamination lies and then operate on the estimate, so they are only as correct as the estimate. RailCap instead judges contamination during generation: whenever a sample falls back onto the greedy trajectory, the next trajectory token is capped to the runner-up, accumulating suppression until the response distribution becomes sufficiently dispersed. Across multiple contaminated models and benchmarks, SA-PPG reveals that prior strategies' restoration is substantially overestimated, while RailCap attains the lowest SA-PPG.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 21 of its 28 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 7 Aug 2026.
Builds on
21 of 28 references.
References · 21
- 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,199
- 2023Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Modelscited by 12,865
- 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 9,743
- 2023Pythia: A Suite for Analyzing Large Language Models Across Training and Scalingcited by 1,734
- 2024LlamaFactory: Unified Efficient Fine-Tuning of 100+ Language Modelscited by 1,442
- 2026DeepSeek-V4: Towards Highly Efficient Million-Token Context Intelligencecited by 877
- 2021Documenting Large Webtext Corpora: A Case Study on the Colossal Clean Crawled Corpuscited by 481
- 2022Data Contamination: From Memorization to Exploitationcited by 234
- 2024Leak, Cheat, Repeat: Data Contamination and Evaluation Malpractices in Closed-Source LLMscited by 224
- 2023Don't Make Your LLM an Evaluation Benchmark Cheatercited by 194
- 2024A Careful Examination of Large Language Model Performance on Grade School Arithmeticcited by 188
- 2023Benchmarking Foundation Models with Language-Model-as-an-Examinercited by 172
9 more
- 2023Stop Uploading Test Data in Plain Text: Practical Strategies for Mitigating Data Contamination by Evaluation Benchmarkscited by 139
- 2023What's In My Big Data?cited by 129
- 2024Pretraining Data Detection for Large Language Models: A Divergence-based Calibration Methodcited by 54
- 2023Estimating Contamination via Perplexity: Quantifying Memorisation in Language Model Evaluationcited by 47
- 2024KIEval: A Knowledge-grounded Interactive Evaluation Framework for Large Language Modelscited by 36
- 2024Training on the Test Task Confounds Evaluation and Emergencecited by 33
- 2024Unveiling the Spectrum of Data Contamination in Language Models: A Survey from Detection to Remediationcited by 30
- 2024TreeEval: Benchmark-Free Evaluation of Large Language Models through Tree Planningcited by 14
- 2025Establishing Trustworthy LLM Evaluation via Shortcut Neuron Analysiscited by 3
Built on by
Not cited yet.