Lune

EMNLP Findings2024

PaCoST: Paired Confidence Significance Testing for Benchmark Contamination Detection in Large Language Models

Huixuan Zhang, Yun Lin, Xiaojun Wan

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) are known to be trained on vast amounts of data, which may unintentionally or intentionally include data from commonly used benchmarks. This inclusion can lead to cheatingly high scores on model leaderboards, yet result in disappointing performance in real-world applications. To address this benchmark contamination problem, we first propose a set of requirements that practical contamination detection methods should follow. Following these proposed requirements, we introduce PaCoST, a Paired Confidence Significance Testing to effectively detect benchmark contamination in LLMs. Our method constructs a counterpart for each piece of data with the same distribution, and performs statistical analysis of the corresponding confidence to test whether the model is significantly more confident under the original benchmark. We validate the effectiveness of PaCoST and apply it on popular open-source models and benchmarks. We find that almost all models and benchmarks we tested are suspected contaminated more or less. We finally call for new LLM evaluation methods. 1

Ask Lune

Ask anything. The answer quotes the paper.

Lune reads all of it and the papers around it, then shows you the passages behind every answer.

Questions to start from

Lune answers from

the full paper · 5 top-tier papers that cite it · related work

Get the answer

Free to start. No credit card required.

Cited by top-tier papers5

  1. In Benchmarks We Trust ... Or Not?Ine Gevers, Victor De Marez, Jens Van Nooten, Jens Lemmens et al.EMNLP 2025 · 1 citation
  2. How Contaminated Is Your Benchmark? Measuring Dataset Leakage in Large Language Models with Kernel DivergenceHyeong Kyu Choi, Maxim Khanov, Hongxin Wei, Yixuan LiICML 2025
  3. STAMP Your Content: Proving Dataset Membership via Watermarked RephrasingsSaksham Rastogi, Pratyush Maini, Danish PruthiICML 2025
  4. MMBench-Live: A Continuously Evolving Benchmark for Multimodal ModelsYuanzhi Liu, Shousheng Zhao, Bo Zhou, Kongming Liang et al.ICML 2026
  5. DyePack: Provably Flagging Test Set Contamination in LLMs Using BackdoorsYize Cheng, Wenxiao Wang, Mazda Moayeri, Soheil FeiziEMNLP 2025

Builds on21

  1. Language Models are Few-Shot LearnersTom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah et al.NeurIPS 2020 · 64,255 citations
  2. BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERTTianyi Zhang, Varsha Kishore, Felix Wu, Kilian Q. Weinberger et al.ICLR 2020 · 8,443 citations
  3. Measuring Massive Multitask Language UnderstandingDan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Steven Basart, Andy Zou et al.ICLR 2021 · 7,905 citations
  4. Membership Inference Attacks Against Machine Learning ModelsReza Shokri, Marco Stronati, Congzheng Song, Vitaly ShmatikovS&P 2017 · 5,137 citations
  5. Finetuned Language Models are Zero-Shot LearnersJason Wei, Maarten Bosma, Vincent Y. Zhao, Kelvin Guu et al.ICLR 2022 · 4,966 citations

Related papers

  1. ConStat: Performance-Based Contamination Detection in Large Language ModelsJasper Dekoninck, Mark Niklas Müller, Martin T. VechevNeurIPS 2024 · 40 citations
  2. NLP Evaluation in trouble: On the Need to Measure LLM Data Contamination for each BenchmarkOscar Sainz, Jon Ander Campos, Iker García-Ferrero, Julen Etxaniz et al.EMNLP Findings 2023 · 85 citations
  3. An Open-Source Data Contamination Report for Large Language ModelsYucheng Li, Yunhao Guo, Frank Guerin, Chenghua LinEMNLP Findings 2024 · 19 citations
  4. Time Travel in LLMs: Tracing Data Contamination in Large Language ModelsShahriar Golchin, Mihai SurdeanuICLR 2024 · 165 citations
  5. Detecting Data Contamination in LLMs via In-Context LearningMichal Zawalski, Meriem Boubdir, Klaudia Balazy, Besmira Nushi et al.ICLR 2026 · 8 citations
Dusk over the sea between two cliffs drawn in fine vertical lines