REVIEW 6 cited by
A Comprehensive Survey of Contamination Detection Methods in Large Language Models
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
read the original abstract
With the rise of Large Language Models (LLMs) in recent years, abundant new opportunities are emerging, but also new challenges, among which contamination is quickly becoming critical. Business applications and fundraising in Artificial Intelligence (AI) have reached a scale at which a few percentage points gained on popular question-answering benchmarks could translate into dozens of millions of dollars, placing high pressure on model integrity. At the same time, it is becoming harder and harder to keep track of the data that LLMs have seen; if not impossible with closed-source models like GPT-4 and Claude-3 not divulging any information on the training set. As a result, contamination becomes a major issue: LLMs' performance may not be reliable anymore, as the high performance may be at least partly due to their previous exposure to the data. This limitation jeopardizes real capability improvement in the field of NLP, yet, there remains a lack of methods on how to efficiently detect contamination. In this paper, we survey all recent work on contamination detection with LLMs, analyzing their methodologies and use cases to shed light on the appropriate usage of contamination detection methods. Our work calls the NLP research community's attention into systematically taking into account contamination bias in LLM evaluation.
Forward citations
Cited by 6 Pith papers
-
Temporal Leakage in LLM Backtesting: Measurement, Validation, and Adjusted Scores
The standard pre/post cutoff check cannot separate memorization from recency, and a single external reference is needed to measure and adjust for temporal leakage.
-
Where Do LLMs Still Struggle? An In-Depth Analysis of Code Generation Benchmarks
Across four benchmarks and six LLMs, consistently failed code-generation tasks are driven by four recurring error patterns rather than by solution-code complexity.
-
Deprecating Benchmarks: Criteria and Framework
A framework for deprecating outdated or flawed AI benchmarks, with seven criteria and a three-phase process of assessment, reporting, and notification.
-
RewardAnything: Generalizable Principle-Following Reward Models
RewardAnything follows natural-language reward principles at inference time and, with the new RABench benchmark, demonstrates that principle-conditioned listwise training beats fixed-preference reward models on held-o...
-
LLM Performance for Code Generation on Noisy Tasks
LLMs solve heavily obfuscated benchmark tasks, and performance decay under obfuscation differs sharply between old and new datasets, which the authors interpret as a signature of training-data contamination.
-
The Non-Determinism of Small LLMs: Evidence of Low Answer Consistency in Repetition Trials of Standard Multiple-Choice Benchmarks
Small open-source LLMs give inconsistent answers on 20% to 50% of multiple-choice questions even at low temperature, while 50B-80B models are consistent on over 90% of questions.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.