mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Benchmark Contamination: A Taxonomy Organized by Defeated Mitigation

arXiv 2608.29463 ↗First posted 29 Aug 2026cs.CR cs.AI cs.CLcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

A benchmark score is a joint property of the model, the evaluation harness, the elicitation budget, the sampled population, and contamination status. Leaderboards publish the model and the score, so capability and leakage stay observationally equivalent. Existing taxonomies classify contamination for automated detection, not the question a reporter faces at publication: given the mitigations already applied, which validity threats remain open? We introduce a taxonomy organized by the mitigation each type defeats -- direct, derivative, temporal, distributional, and acquired -- spanning training-time and evaluation-time leakage. Holding out a private test set closes the first alone. The fifth is acquired during the evaluation itself; because it is a property of one run, it must be recorded with the reported score rather than with the benchmark release. We operationalize it as a four-field disclosure protocol in which "unknown" is a valid entry, released under CC BY 4.0 with a JSON Schema, a validator, and worked examples. Two coders external to the design team applied a pre-registered instrument to 41 documents. Per-variable linear-weighted kappa runs from 0.00 to 0.35 (median 0.21) over 29 main-pass documents against a single-coder test-retest ceiling of 0.84, collapsing under the class skew the registration anticipated; pooling raises it to 0.46 through chance correction rather than better agreement. Two variables fall below the prevalence-robust threshold registered in advance: strata reporting and the acquired type introduced here. Disagreement concentrates on when a variable applies rather than on what a document states. Elicitation budgets are reported in 13% of documents, and no document addresses all five types. The contribution is the taxonomy, the score-side artifact that follows from it, and a pre-registered measurement of instrument reliability and current disclosure.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 34 of its 49 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 29 Aug 2026.

Builds on

34 of 49 references.

References · 34

  1. 2018Datasheets for Datasetscited by 1,386
  2. 2018Model Cards for Model Reportingcited by 1,080
  3. 2024GSM-Symbolic: Understanding the Limitations of Mathematical Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 550
  4. 2021AI and the Everything in the Whole Wide World Benchmarkcited by 349
  5. 2023NLP Evaluation in trouble: On the Need to Measure LLM Data Contamination for each Benchmarkcited by 348
  6. 2024Frontier Models are Capable of In-context Schemingcited by 287
  7. 2024LiveBench: A Challenging, Contamination-Limited LLM Benchmarkcited by 262
  8. 2022Data Contamination: From Memorization to Exploitationcited by 236
  9. 2024Leak, Cheat, Repeat: Data Contamination and Evaluation Malpractices in Closed-Source LLMscited by 229
  10. 2021What Will it Take to Fix Benchmarking in Natural Language Understanding?cited by 203
  11. 2023Rethinking Benchmark and Contamination for Language Models with Rephrased Samplescited by 195
  12. 2024Benchmark Data Contamination of Large Language Models: A Surveycited by 147
22 more
  1. 2023Stop Uploading Test Data in Plain Text: Practical Strategies for Mitigating Data Contamination by Evaluation Benchmarkscited by 142
  2. 2023Investigating Data Contamination in Modern Benchmarks for Large Language Modelscited by 138
  3. 2025Measuring what Matters: Construct Validity in Large Language Model Benchmarkscited by 119
  4. 2025Establishing Best Practices for Building Rigorous Agentic Benchmarkscited by 102
  5. 2023Task Contamination: Language Models May Not Be Few-Shot Anymorecited by 99
  6. 2024MMLU-CF: A Contamination-free Multi-task Language Understanding Benchmarkcited by 41
  7. 2024ConStat: Performance-Based Contamination Detection in Large Language Modelscited by 33
  8. 2026ExploitGym: Can AI Agents Turn Security Vulnerabilities into Real Attacks?cited by 29
  9. 2024Does Data Contamination Detection Work (Well) for LLMs? A Survey and Evaluation on Detection Assumptionscited by 26
  10. 2025Search-Time Data Contaminationcited by 19
  11. 2026Quantifying Frontier LLM Capabilities for Container Sandbox Escapecited by 18
  12. 2025Overestimation in LLM Evaluation: A Controlled Large-Scale Study on Data Contamination's Impact on Machine Translationcited by 13
  13. 2024DICE: Detecting In-distribution Contamination in LLM's Fine-tuning Phase for Math Reasoningcited by 11
  14. 2024A Taxonomy for Data Contamination in Large Language Modelscited by 11
  15. 2025STREAM (ChemBio): A Standard for Transparently Reporting Evaluations in AI Model Reportscited by 10
  16. 2026Search-Time Contamination in Deep Research Agents: Measuring Performance Inflation in Public Benchmark Evaluationcited by 9
  17. 2026Soft Contamination Means Benchmarks Test Shallow Generalizationcited by 8
  18. 2026Evaluation Cards: An Interpretive Layer for AI Evaluation Reportingcited by 4
  19. 2025Test of Time: Rethinking Temporal Signal of Benchmark Contaminationcited by 3
  20. 2025What do model reports say about their ChemBio benchmark evaluations? Comparing recent releases to the STREAM frameworkcited by 2
  21. 2026Chasing the Public Score: User Pressure and Evaluation Exploitation in Coding Agent Workflowscited by 2
  22. 2026Dissecting model behavior through agent trajectoriescited by 2

Built on by

Not cited yet.