Cited by 48Topic ModelingDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot LearningNatural Language Processing Techniques

Task Contamination: Language Models May Not Be Few-Shot Anymore

Open access
Li, Changmao, Flanigan, Jeffrey·2024·Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) offer impressive performance in various zero-shot and few-shot tasks. However, their success in zero-shot or few-shot settings may be affected by task contamination, a potential limitation that has not been thoroughly examined. This paper investigates how zero-shot and few-shot performance of LLMs has changed chronologically over datasets released over time, and over LLMs released over time. Utilizing GPT-3 series models and several other recent open-sourced LLMs, and controlling for dataset difficulty, we find that datasets released prior to the LLM training data creation date perform surprisingly better than datasets released post the LLM training data creation date. This strongly indicates that, for many LLMs, there exists task contamination on zero-shot and few-shot evaluation for datasets prior to the LLMs' training data creation date. Additionally, we utilize training data inspection, training data extraction, and a membership inference attack, which reveal further evidence of task contamination. Importantly, we find that for tasks with no possibility of task contamination, LLMs rarely demonstrate statistically significant improvements over simple majority baselines, in both zero and few-shot settings.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1609/aaai.v38i16.29808

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • We reserve a random sample of 50% of the dataset to guard against potential model memorization and ensure that a proper test set remains available for future evaluation.

    “Consistent with emerging understanding of AI benchmarking and leaderboards, we reserve a random sample of 50% of the dataset to guard against potential model memorization and ensure that a proper test set remains available for future evaluation (Haimes et al. 2024; Li and Flanigan 2024)”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Li, C., & Flanigan, J.
Affiliations
University of California, Santa Cruz (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence
Published
2024-03-24
Volume
38
Issue
16
Pages
18471-18480
ISSN
  • 2159-5399 (ISSN-L)
  • 2374-3468
OpenAlex
W4393160461
Cited by
47
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 9
FWCI
13.87
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • AAAI Publications (The Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI)) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1730158, 1540112, 1826967, 2100237, 2112167, 1541349, 2120019)
  • University of California, San Diego
  • Office of the President, University of California
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
Keywords
large language models, zero-shot learning, few-shot learning, training data contamination, membership inference attacks, training data extraction, GPT-3

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review