When Is Benchmark Contamination Detectable? Information Limits and Power-Calibrated Audits

Benchmark contamination is diagnosed today with n-gram overlap, with likelihood-based membership inference, or with canary strings, and each needs something usually unavailable: the training corpus, a well-chosen test statistic, or foresight at dataset release. A recent alternative reads contamination off a linear probe on internal activations. We show that the natural way to do this does not work, and specify one that survives measurement. The protocol reports a zero-sum contrast on the depth profile of probe accuracy, recentred on a level-matched placebo baseline, tested against a label-permutation null, with the reference set twice the size of the suspect set. Each choice replaces a simpler alternative we measured and rejected. Reporting the level of excess separability rather than its shape makes the false positive rate track the size of the analyst's own control set, from 0.03 to 0.99 under a true null. Contrasting against a flat depth profile fails in both directions, rejecting a true null 0.72 of the time when surface decodability rises with depth and losing all power when it falls. An item bootstrap holds the fitted probe fixed and rejects up to 0.09 of the time where a permutation null that refits it holds 0.02. A half-size baseline triples the error rate. On real transformers, baseline depth profiles are measurably not flat, spanning up to 29.1 accuracy points on a temporal split, and their non-flatness tracks the surface difference between the item sets (correlation 0.87 over 6 audits), so the correction is largest exactly where it is needed. All 4 well-matched Pile arms return null, and the protocol refuses a verdict on the temporal split rather than reporting one. What this does not establish is whether transformers carry a familiarity direction at all: the only positive sits on the split where exchangeability fails. Implementation, tests and audits are released.

Benchmark contamination, where evaluation examples appear in a model's training data, threatens the validity of LLM assessment. Statistical tools for detecting training-data membership exist, but have been validated almost exclusively in controlled academic regimes: large, homogeneous pre-training corpora and transparent, single-stage training pipelines. Whether these methods remain reliable in realistic auditing scenarios remains unclear. We identify two under-studied failure modes: distribution shift, which arises when suspect and validation sets violate the IID assumption, and scale constraints, which arise because benchmarks are orders of magnitude smaller than pre-training corpora. We systematically evaluate three leading paradigms, LLM Dataset Inference, Post-Hoc Dataset Inference, and CoDeC, across 25 models from multiple families (including Pythia, OLMo 2, and specialised cultural and medical LLMs) and scales (up to 27B). We then further extend our analysis to frontier industry models. Across 335 evaluations, only 201 yield correct outcomes. LLM Dataset Inference results in false positives under distribution shift, Post-Hoc Dataset Inference is underpowered at benchmark scale, and CoDeC provides only coarse provenance signals that are insufficient to verify individual benchmark splits. Our results reveal a systematic reliability gap between controlled validation and practical benchmark auditing, and show that statistical detection cannot yet replace transparent data provenance. We open-source our benchmark for further research.

Benchmarks increasingly guide deployment, procurement and scientific screening, yet a score supports only the response it records, not necessarily the deployment action. We introduce deployment-complete benchmarking, which tests whether benchmark evidence determines a deployment action. A benchmark is complete for a claim exactly when the action is constant on each evidence fiber; mixed fibers expose missing deployment information, and completion curves quantify the evidence required to resolve ambiguity. In controlled response spaces, benchmark-channel conformal coverage of 94.98% transferred poorly to an unmeasured deployment channel (10.07%), whereas response-rank intervals achieved 94.91% coverage; even zero benchmark error certified only 45.4% of candidates at the largest residual size. Public audits revealed incompleteness, including 97.9% mixed Tox21 fibers and zero median certifiable fraction in main Matbench and JARVIS audits. In held-out replays, certify-then-acquire reduced false decisions from 1.19% to 0.027% in Tox21 and from 20.3% to 0.128% in JARVIS, while changing model choice and identifying deployment-relevant probes. Deployment-ready benchmarks should report evidence, supported actions, ambiguity and completion cost rather than scores alone.