aiqbench analysis
This paper introduces a new taxonomy for benchmark contamination in AI evaluation, categorizing leakage types by the specific mitigations they defeat rather than just their source. It proposes a practical disclosure protocol to help researchers transparently report validity threats that persist even after standard defenses like held-out test sets are applied. For the community, this framework shifts focus from automated detection to the critical question of which risks remain open at the time of publication.
Benchmark Contamination: A Taxonomy Organized by Defeated Mitigation
arXiv:2608.29463v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: 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.
Abstract: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.
18 pages, 3 figures, 6 tables. Specification, audit instrument, pre-registration and analysis code: this https URL
Cryptography and Security (cs.CR); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computation and Language (cs.CL); Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2608.29463 [cs.CR]
(or arXiv:2608.29463v1 [cs.CR] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.29463 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 399 words
Related coverage
The J-Space Debate, Agent Swarms, and Pacing Frontier AI - Digital Minds Newsletter #4
LessWrong · Sep 18, 2026
Trustworthy Agentic AI: Failure Modes, Mitigation Strategies, and a Lifecycle Framework for Autonomous LLM Systems
arXiv · Sep 22, 2026

First Unified Benchmark Red-Teams VQE Adversarial Robustness
Quantum Zeitgeist · Jul 24, 2026

LiveLaw Supreme Court Half-Yearly Digest: January - June 2026 [Part 2]
livelaw.in · Sep 13, 2026