REVIEW 2 cited by
Search-Time Data Contamination
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Search-Time Data Contamination
read the original abstract
Data contamination refers to the leakage of evaluation data into model training data, resulting in overfitting to supposedly held-out test sets and compromising test validity. We identify an analogous issue, search-time contamination (STC), in evaluating search-based LLM agents which use tools to gather information from online sources when answering user queries. STC occurs when the retrieval step surfaces a source containing the test question (or a near-duplicate) alongside its answer, enabling agents to copy rather than genuinely infer or reason, undermining benchmark integrity. We find that HuggingFace, an online platform hosting evaluation datasets, appears among retrieved sources in search based agent logs. Consequently, agents often explicitly acknowledge discovering question answer pairs from HuggingFace within their reasoning chains. On three commonly used capability benchmarks: Humanity's Last Exam (HLE), SimpleQA, and GPQA, we demonstrate that for approximately 3% of questions, search-based agents directly find the datasets with ground truth labels on HuggingFace. When millions of evaluation queries target the same benchmark, even small, repeated leaks can accelerate the benchmark's obsolescence, shortening its intended lifecycle. After HuggingFace is blocked, we observe a drop in accuracy on the contaminated subset of approximately 15%. We further show through ablation experiments that publicly accessible evaluation datasets on HuggingFace may not be the sole source of STC. To this end, we conclude by proposing best practices for benchmark design and result reporting to address this novel form of leakage and ensure trustworthy evaluation of search-based LLM agents. To facilitate the auditing of evaluation results, we also publicly release the complete logs from our experiments.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Reasoning Gets Harder for LLMs Inside A Dialogue
LLMs show a consistent performance drop on arithmetic, spatial, and temporal reasoning tasks when framed in multi-turn dialogues versus isolated settings, demonstrated by the new BOULDER benchmark across eight travel-...
-
ProfBench: Multi-Domain Rubrics requiring Professional Knowledge to Answer and Judge
ProfBench is a new multi-domain benchmark with human-expert rubrics for judging LLM responses on professional tasks, showing top models reach only 65.9% performance while providing cheap LLM judges that reduce evaluat...
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.