Contamination Inflates Scores but Rarely Reorders Large Language Model Leaderboards

Abstract

Benchmark contamination, the leakage of test items into training data, is widely described as a threat to the reliability of large language model (LLM) leaderboards. We argue that this concern conflates two distinct questions: whether contamination inflates absolute scores, and whether it reorders the ranking of models. We recast contamination as a violation of anchor-item invariance and measure it through the differential functioning of original versus semantically equivalent paraphrased items, a within-item contrast that holds the measured skill fixed and isolates memorization from capability. Using per-instance responses from 47 publicly released models and 74 models finetuned with a known dose of contamination, across four benchmarks (ARC, GSM8K, HellaSwag, MMLU), we first calibrate the measure against ground truth: it recovers injected contamination dose-responsively (a corrected effect of +0.187 accuracy points for test-set leakage) and never flags a negative-control model trained only on the legitimate training split (-0.012). We then quantify leaderboard impact: the rank correlation between a standard leaderboard and a paraphrase-controlled leaderboard is 0.997, and a sensitivity analysis shows that the observed differential contamination is far below the level needed to move rankings, with only 3 of 188 model-by-benchmark cases showing differential contamination corroborated across two references. Contamination among these public models is therefore largely uniform: it inflates absolute scores without reordering the leaderboard, and ranking distortion requires the rare case of differential contamination. We provide a calibrated invariance audit, released as a reference implementation, and recommend that leaderboards report paraphrase-controlled rankings alongside confidence intervals.