The first Poisoned Chalice of LLM Evaluation Competition is organized, which frames contamination detection as a white-box membership inference task on source code and provides participants with curated datasets, target models, baseline attacks, and a final evaluation on a held-out model and dataset.
Abstract
Large language models are increasingly used to evaluate and support software engineering tasks, yet the validity of these evaluations is often undermined by uncertainty about whether benchmark instances were seen during pretraining. This can lead to data contamination, which may inflate performance and result in misleading conclusions about model capability. Despite this, the training corpora of many modern models are only partially disclosed, making direct decontamination infeasible. This creates a need for practical methods that can detect a large language models' prior exposure to training data without access to the full training corpus. To address this challenge, we organize the first Poisoned Chalice of LLM Evaluation Competition, co-located with the FSE-AIWare 2026 Competition Track. The competition frames contamination detection as a white-box membership inference task on source code and provides participants with curated datasets, target models, baseline attacks, and a final evaluation on a held-out model and dataset. This design encourages methods that generalize beyond superficial dataset artifacts and beyond a single training setting. This paper reports the setup and results of the competition. More broadly, the competition aims to catalyze the community around trustworthy LLM evaluation for software engineering.
The results show that the LLM's capability dissolves with dimension in a way no noise-corrupted classical learner mimics - which explains why LLMs, so capable elsewhere, keep losing to fifty-year-old baselines on tables, while leaving the mechanism of the prediction as an open question.
This work finds that likelihood-trained TPMs can result in failed generations due to overly large corrections to the LM’s logits, and trains TPMs with LM-aligned objectives that better align with the LM token-probability space.
Hanzhang Liu, William Zhao, Zi-Lei Shao et al.· 0 citations
It is established that LLM outputs should be treated as draws from a distribution rather than as fixed measurements, as well as guidance for data editors and authors.
Guillaume Coqueret, J. Llull, Florian Oswald et al.· 2 citations
This work evaluates 21 instruction-tuned LLM runs under a fixed ranked-response protocol, showing that models often locate the correct motivational region while ranking close alternatives unstably, and motivates value-recognition evaluation that combines exact accuracy, ranked recovery, and directed error analysis.
A. Chetvergov, S. Ukolov, Timofei Sivoraksha et al.· arXiv.org· 0 citations
This work investigates the impact of cross-lingual prompt injection attacks on LLM-based relevance judgments using TREC Deep Learning collections and two open-weight models under established prompting frameworks, and demonstrates that multilingual query-based injections are highly effective in inflating relevance score...
This position paper argues that each original challenge for LLM-based Text-to-SQL has given rise to a new dimension, and synthesizes these concerns and outlines a research agenda along three horizons, arguing for trustworthiness, interactivity, and economic sustainability as first-class concerns.
Luca Sala, Giovanni Sullutrone, Sonia Bergamaschi· International Conference on...· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.