arXiv preprint ·
Measurement-First Auditing of Agentic Leaderboards: Contamination Susceptibility, Matched-Control Re-evaluation, and Scorer Validation
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Agentic leaderboards increasingly evaluate systems on public benchmarks whose task statements and solution-bearing artifacts can remain accessible. We propose a measurement-first audit framework that distinguishes contamination claims according to the evidence required to support them. It separates three channels that require different evidence: training-time exposure, evaluation-time retrieval, and pipeline/scaffold leakage. Each channel is coded as open, partial, closed, or unknown under a fail-closed rule. Across nine Holistic Agent Leaderboard (HAL) configurations, none of the 27 channel assessments was coded closed, but incidents were confirmed in four configurations. We then apply the behavioral component of the framework to a reported file-localization gap on SWE-bench Verified, using an outcome-blind, same-repository matched-control design with symmetric prompt-leakage screening, paired and repository-aware uncertainty analyses, and scorer validation, evaluated on GPT-4.1 and DeepSeek-V4-Flash. Among the 100 pairs retained after symmetric screening and the pair-integrity exclusion, GPT-4.1 showed a $+10.0$-point pair-weighted Top-3 benchmark-associated gap, but the 95\% intervals from both the prespecified paired-bootstrap procedure and the post-hoc repository-balanced analysis included zero, leaving the benchmark-associated gap inconclusive. The reproduction scorer did not pass its validation gate: against consensus human labels, sufficient scorer sensitivity could not be established for either model, and both DeepSeek-V4-Flash firings on correct-gold comparisons were false positives. Without provenance evidence, appropriate controls, symmetric leakage screening, and validated scorers, stronger contamination claims are not warranted. The results do not establish training-data membership, contamination prevalence, or benchmark-induced score inflation.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Artificial Intelligence
Visual Grounding Safety in Vision-Language Models
Disentangling Models from Personas in Heterogeneous LLM Simulations
Transformer-Based Time-Series Inference of Lindblad Dynamics in Open Quantum Systems
A Systematic Investigation of Bias in Large Language Models for Advertising Relevance
How Should a Prompt Optimizer Spend a Tight Budget? BudgetAPO with Noise-Adaptive Evaluation
Get the few papers worth your time in Artificial Intelligence every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.