Does Question Really Matter? The Attribution of Answer Bias in LLM Evaluation
Boxi Cao, Ruotong Pan, Hongyu Lin, Xianpei Han, Le Sun
Abstract
Multiple-choices question answering (MCQA) has emerged as one of the most popular task formats for large language models (LLMs) evaluation. Unfortunately, there exist substantial evidence that the evaluation of current MCQA benchmarks suffers from significant answer bias, which severely undermines the reliability of the evaluation conclusions. Specifically, many LLMs achieve performance significantly higher than random selection even when the questions are omitted from input information. To this end, we conduct a systematic investigation of the attribution of answer bias, and demonstrate a strong correlation between the degree of data contamination and the severity of answer bias, while the position of options and the popularity of answers have relatively minor effects. Building on these insights, we further propose OPD, a straightforward yet effective tool for contamination detection and dataset debiasing without requiring access to the model’s internal training data. Our findings and algorithms provide valuable insights for the design of future trustworthy LLM evaluation protocols.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 89c69075-6131-4b68-948d-df09bf255ee3Builds on10
- Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackLong Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 24,707 citations
- Measuring Massive Multitask Language UnderstandingDan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Steven Basart, Andy Zou et al.ICLR 2021 · 7,905 citations
- Calibrate Before Use: Improving Few-shot Performance of Language ModelsZihao Zhao, Eric Wallace, Shi Feng, Dan Klein et al.ICML 2021 · 1,843 citations
- Large Language Models Are Not Robust Multiple Choice SelectorsChujie Zheng, Hao Zhou, Fandong Meng, Jie Zhou et al.ICLR 2024 · 424 citations
- Detecting Pretraining Data from Large Language ModelsWeijia Shi, Anirudh Ajith, Mengzhou Xia, Yangsibo Huang et al.ICLR 2024 · 365 citations
Related papers
- MMLU-CF: A Contamination-free Multi-task Language Understanding BenchmarkQihao Zhao, Yangyu Huang, Tengchao Lv, Lei Cui et al.ACL 2025 · 33 citations
- Which of These Best Describes Multiple Choice Evaluation with LLMs? A) Forced B) Flawed C) Fixable D) All of the AboveNishant Balepur, Rachel Rudinger, Jordan Lee Boyd-GraberACL 2025
- Training on the Benchmark Is Not All You NeedShiwen Ni, Xiangtao Kong, Chengming Li, Xiping Hu et al.AAAI 2025 · 24 citations
- Unbiased Evaluation of Large Language Models from a Causal PerspectiveMeilin Chen, Jian Tian, Liang Ma, Di Xie et al.ICML 2025
- The Emperor's New Clothes in Benchmarking? A Rigorous Examination of Mitigation Strategies for LLM Benchmark Data ContaminationYifan Sun, Han Wang, Dongbai Li, Gang Wang et al.ICML 2025
