HFEPX · Eval paper review

Cross-Context Verification: Hierarchical Detection of Benchmark Contamination through Session-Isolated Analysis

Tae-Eun Song

Published

Mar 23, 2026

Citations

0

Trust level

Moderate

Usefulness score

25/100 (Low)

Extraction confidence

55% (Moderate)

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Rater population

Not reported

Signals refreshed

Apr 1, 2026

Open arXiv Find implementation Shortlist (0) RSS feed

Tags

Automatic Metrics Coding Law Multi Agent

Should you rely on this paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Use this for comparison and orientation, not as your only source.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A benchmark-and-metrics comparison anchor.

What to verify

Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.

Main weakness

No major weakness surfaced.

Human feedback signal

Not explicit

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation signal

Detected

Eval setup described

Usefulness for eval research

25/100

Adjacent candidate

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here

Human Eval Papers LLM-as-Judge Papers Pairwise Preference Papers Tool-Use Evaluation Search

Abstract

LLM coding benchmarks face a credibility crisis: widespread solution leakage and test quality issues undermine SWE-bench Verified, while existing detection methods--paraphrase consistency, n-gram overlap, perplexity analysis--never directly observe whether a model reasons or recalls. Meanwhile, simply repeating verification degrades accuracy: multi-turn review generates false positives faster than it discovers true errors, suggesting that structural approaches are needed. We introduce Cross-Context Verification (CCV), a black-box method that solves the same benchmark problem in N independent sessions and measures solution diversity, combined with the Hierarchical Cross-Context Architecture (HCCA), a multi-agent analysis framework that prevents confirmation bias through intentional information restriction across specialized analytical roles. On 9 SWE-bench Verified problems (45 trials, Claude Opus 4.6, temperature 0), CCV achieves perfect separation between contaminated and genuine reasoning (Mann-Whitney U=0, p approx 0.012, r = 1.0). Key findings: (1) contamination is binary--models either recall perfectly or not at all; (2) reasoning absence is a perfect discriminator; (3) 33% of prior contamination labels are false positives; (4) HCCA's independent analysis structure discovers contamination-flaw composite cases that single-analyst approaches miss. A pilot experiment extending HCCA to multi-stage verification (Worker to Verifier to Director) yields a negative result--100% sycophantic confirmation--providing further evidence that information restriction, not structural complexity, is the key mechanism. We release all code and data.

What we could verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"LLM coding benchmarks face a credibility crisis: widespread solution leakage and test quality issues undermine SWE-bench Verified, while existing detection methods--paraphrase consistency, n-gram overlap, perplexity analysis--never directly observe whether a model reasons or recalls."

Evaluation Modes

strong

Automatic Metrics

Includes extracted eval setup.

"LLM coding benchmarks face a credibility crisis: widespread solution leakage and test quality issues undermine SWE-bench Verified, while existing detection methods--paraphrase consistency, n-gram overlap, perplexity analysis--never directly observe whether a model reasons or recalls."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"LLM coding benchmarks face a credibility crisis: widespread solution leakage and test quality issues undermine SWE-bench Verified, while existing detection methods--paraphrase consistency, n-gram overlap, perplexity analysis--never directly observe whether a model reasons or recalls."

Benchmarks / Datasets

strong

SWE Bench, SWE Bench Verified

Useful for quick benchmark comparison.

"LLM coding benchmarks face a credibility crisis: widespread solution leakage and test quality issues undermine SWE-bench Verified, while existing detection methods--paraphrase consistency, n-gram overlap, perplexity analysis--never directly observe whether a model reasons or recalls."

Reported Metrics

strong

Accuracy, Recall, Perplexity

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

"LLM coding benchmarks face a credibility crisis: widespread solution leakage and test quality issues undermine SWE-bench Verified, while existing detection methods--paraphrase consistency, n-gram overlap, perplexity analysis--never directly observe whether a model reasons or recalls."

Benchmarks and datasets

SWE-benchSWE-bench Verified

Reported metrics

accuracyrecallperplexity

Human feedback details

Uses human feedback: No
Feedback types: None
Rater population: Not reported
Expertise required: Coding

Evaluation details

Evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics
Agentic eval: Multi Agent
Quality controls: Not reported
Evidence quality: Moderate
Use this page as: Background context only

Research brief

Metadata summary

LLM coding benchmarks face a credibility crisis: widespread solution leakage and test quality issues undermine SWE-bench Verified, while existing detection methods--paraphrase consistency, n-gram overlap, perplexity analysis--never directly observe whether a model reasons or recalls.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key takeaways

LLM coding benchmarks face a credibility crisis: widespread solution leakage and test quality issues undermine SWE-bench Verified, while existing detection methods--paraphrase consistency, n-gram overlap, perplexity analysis--never directly observe whether a model reasons or recalls.
Meanwhile, simply repeating verification degrades accuracy: multi-turn review generates false positives faster than it discovers true errors, suggesting that structural approaches are needed.
We introduce Cross-Context Verification (CCV), a black-box method that solves the same benchmark problem in N independent sessions and measures solution diversity, combined with the Hierarchical Cross-Context Architecture (HCCA), a multi-agent analysis framework that prevents confirmation bias through intentional information restriction across specialized analytical roles.

Researcher actions

Compare this paper against others mentioning SWE-bench.
Validate inferred eval signals (Automatic metrics) against the full paper.
Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended queries

SWE-bench Accuracy

Contribution summary

LLM coding benchmarks face a credibility crisis: widespread solution leakage and test quality issues undermine SWE-bench Verified, while existing detection methods--paraphrase consistency, n-gram overlap, perplexity analysis--never directly…
Meanwhile, simply repeating verification degrades accuracy: multi-turn review generates false positives faster than it discovers true errors, suggesting that structural approaches are needed.
We introduce Cross-Context Verification (CCV), a black-box method that solves the same benchmark problem in N independent sessions and measures solution diversity, combined with the Hierarchical Cross-Context Architecture (HCCA), a…

Why it matters for eval

LLM coding benchmarks face a credibility crisis: widespread solution leakage and test quality issues undermine SWE-bench Verified, while existing detection methods--paraphrase consistency, n-gram overlap, perplexity analysis--never directly…
We introduce Cross-Context Verification (CCV), a black-box method that solves the same benchmark problem in N independent sessions and measures solution diversity, combined with the Hierarchical Cross-Context Architecture (HCCA), a…

Researcher checklist

Human feedback protocol is explicit

No explicit human feedback protocol detected.
Evaluation mode is explicit

Detected: Automatic Metrics
Quality control reporting appears

No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.
Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

Detected: SWE-bench, SWE-bench Verified
Metric reporting is present

Detected: accuracy, recall, perplexity