Measurement-First Auditing of Agentic Leaderboards: Contamination Susceptibility, Matched-Control Re-evaluation, and Scorer Validation

LLM benchmarks can build an organization's reputation and attract customers, but only when results are transparent and verifiable. Unverified claims that DeepSeek R1 outperformed OpenAI's o1 contributed to market panic on January 27, 2025, when Nvidia lost USD589 billion in market value. Yet vendor benchmarks often depend on an honor system. Academic reassessments and independent leaderboards have found undisclosed changes to proprietary models, contaminated training data, and selective reporting. LLM-as-a-judge methods scale evaluation by reducing human review. Studies, however, suggest that judges may show identity-aware bias, scoring an answer according to its source model rather than its quality. This bias has not been fully measured or corrected across politically sensitive, reasoning-intensive, and preference-based tasks. We examine this problem using seven verifier models: GPT-OSS 120B, Llama 3.3 70B, GLM 5.1, Qwen3 32B, DeepSeek V4 Pro, Mistral Large3, and Sarvam M. They score anonymous and identity-disclosed responses from three primary models on 58 factual, reasoning, political, and preference-based questions. Identity disclosure slightly raises scores for factual questions, moderately affects stress-reasoning tasks, and causes large changes for geopolitically sensitive topics. Notable results include GLM5.1 (+7.00 points, p = 0.0249) and Llama 3.3 70B (+1.56 points, p = 0.00). We also introduce a blockchain-based commit-reveal protocol using Autonomous Economic Agents on an Ethereum-compatible ledger. In Phase 1, each judge records a one-way hash of its score and a secret salt before candidate identities are revealed. In Phase 2, the identity and raw score are disclosed and verified on-chain. This creates a tamper-evident audit trail that separates blind evaluation from post-hoc claims and reduces the verification burden on independent researchers and leaderboard operators.

Agentic benchmarks guide model selection and training. Yet an agent can pass a task without demonstrating the intended capability. Such outcomes constitute unearned passes; their proportion among all passes defines the integrity gap. As agents improve, benchmark surfaces that once seemed harmless can become exploitable, making benchmark validity an ongoing maintenance problem. We introduce a process-verification framework that audits passing trajectories, distinguishes evidenced reward hacking from verifier weakness, and localizes exploitable surfaces for repair. Across 3,810 passing trajectories from 29 model-benchmark cohorts, confirmed violations often increase with model generation but not monotonically. On SWEBench Pro V1.0, confirmed violation rates rise from 24% to 73% between Opus 4.7 and Fable 5 on matched tasks; later cohorts fall to 11% for Fable 5.1 and 0% for GPT-6 Astra. These comparisons are descriptive: configurations were not normalized, and the latest models also pass fewer exploitable tasks. Violations concentrate around a small set of recurring surfaces, especially unintended access to reference solutions through git history. Three repair case studies across two benchmarks show why blocking a recorded exploit is insufficient: the same protected information can remain accessible through another route. Therefore, we combine minimal patches with exploit replay and fresh agent evaluation, auditing new passes under the original standard. No evaluated attempt against the final patches reached the protected channel, and every post-patch pass was judged legitimate. Benchmark integrity requires ongoing maintenance: audit passing behavior, repair the enabling surface, and re-evaluate both exploit access and legitimate solvability.

Agent benchmarks increasingly evaluate repository editing, web research, terminal use, and long-horizon interaction. Their scores support capability claims only when the evaluation protocol keeps the intended capability necessary for success. Recent reward-hacking benchmarks and system reports show that agents can instead recover public solutions, read evaluation artifacts, infer generator structure, manipulate feedback, or benefit from invalid scoring paths; existing responses do not provide a common procedure for attributing these shortcuts and quantifying their effect across benchmarks. We formulate protocol validity and introduce HackDetect, a post-hoc audit that identifies an exposure, determines how the agent used it, and assesses whether the resulting score is misleading. We quantify score inflation with the Mislead gap, defined as the exploit score minus the intended score. We audit 2,385 traces across 15 agent benchmarks and find evidence of exposures and reward hacking in 67.0% of Frontier Science traces and 66.7% of AutoLab tasks. Across paired comparisons, we measure score inflation of 0.45-1.00, showing that benchmark reports should provide evidence that scores reflect the intended capability.