The DOI matches its DataCite record.
Rethinking Benchmark and Contamination for Language Models with Rephrased Samples
Abstract
Large language models are increasingly trained on all the data ever produced by humans. Many have raised concerns about the trustworthiness of public benchmarks due to potential contamination in pre-training or fine-tuning datasets. While most data decontamination efforts apply string matching (e.g., n-gram overlap) to remove benchmark data, we show that these methods are insufficient, and simple variations of test data (e.g., paraphrasing, translation) can easily bypass these decontamination measures. Furthermore, we demonstrate that if such variation of test data is not eliminated, a 13B model can easily overfit a test benchmark and achieve drastically high performance, on par with GPT-4. We validate such observations in widely used benchmarks such as MMLU, GSK8k, and HumanEval. To address this growing risk, we propose a stronger LLM-based decontamination method and apply it to widely used pre-training and fine-tuning datasets, revealing significant previously unknown test overlap. For example, in pre-training sets such as RedPajama-Data-1T and StarCoder-Data, we identified that 8-18\% of the HumanEval benchmark overlaps. Interestingly, we also find such contamination in synthetic dataset generated by GPT-3.5/4, suggesting a potential risk of unintentional contamination. We urge the community to adopt stronger decontamination approaches when using public benchmarks. Moreover, we call for the community to actively develop fresh one-time exams to evaluate models accurately. Our decontamination tool is publicly available at https://github.com/lm-sys/llm-decontaminator.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
LLM synthetic data is widely used for training and already contains lots of paraphrased data.
“However, LLM's synthetic data is widely used for training, which already contains lots of paraphrased data (Yang et al., 2023).”
From Generalization or Memorization: Data Contamination and Trustworthy Evaluation for Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as Yang et al., 2023
Section 6.2 says models are increasingly trained on LLM-generated data. Section 5.3 finds 21 rephrased HumanEval samples in one synthetic training dataset, CodeAlpaca. That supports the existence of paraphrased samples in synthetic data, but not the broader claim that LLM-generated training data generally contains lots of them. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredData contamination detection and trustworthy evaluation for LLMs remain open and challenging issues.
“Although acknowledged the significance, data contamination detection and trustworthy evaluation for LLMs still persist as open and challenging issues (Yang et al., 2023;Huang et al., 2023).”
From Generalization or Memorization: Data Contamination and Trustworthy Evaluation for Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as Yang et al., 2023
Recent investigations suggested that filtering training data based on n-grams may not effectively address data contamination, especially concerning semantically equivalent sentence rephrasing.
“Recent investigations (Huang et al., 2023;Yang et al., 2023) have suggested that filtering training data based on n-grams may not effectively address the issue of data contamination, especially concerning semantically equivalent sentence rephrasing.”
From Generalization or Memorization: Data Contamination and Trustworthy Evaluation for Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as Yang et al., 2023
LLM Decontaminator detected the similarity of test data and training data based on other advanced LLMs.
“LLM Decontaminator (Yang et al., 2023) detected the similarity of test data and training data based on other advanced LLMs.”
From Generalization or Memorization: Data Contamination and Trustworthy Evaluation for Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as Yang et al., 2023
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 13
- Balle, B., Cherubin, G., and Hayes, J. Reconstructing train- ing data with informed adversaries. In 2022 IEEE Sympo- sium on Security and Privacy (SP), pp. 1138-1156. IEEE, 2022.
- Chang, Y., Wang, X., Wang, J., Wu, Y., Zhu, K., Chen, H., Yang, L., Yi, X., Wang, C., Wang, Y., et al. A survey on evaluation of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.03109, 2023. · arXiv
- Chen, M., Tworek, J., Jun, H., Yuan, Q., Pinto, H. P. d. O., Kaplan, J., Edwards, H., Burda, Y., Joseph, N., Brockman, G., et al. Evaluating large language models trained on code. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03374, 2021. · arXiv
- Cobbe, K., Kosaraju, V., Bavarian, M., Chen, M., Jun, H., Kaiser, L., Plappert, M., Tworek, J., Hilton, J., Nakano, R., et al. Training verifiers to solve math word problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168, 2021. · arXiv
- Dodge, J., Sap, M., Marasović, A., Agnew, W., Ilharco, G., Groeneveld, D., Mitchell, M., and Gardner, M. Documenting large webtext corpora: A case study on the colossal clean crawled corpus. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.08758, 2021. · arXiv
- Hendrycks, D., Burns, C., Basart, S., Zou, A., Mazeika, M., Song, D., and Steinhardt, J. Measuring mas- sive multitask language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.03300, 2020. · arXiv
- Hendrycks, D., Burns, C., Kadavath, S., Arora, A., Basart, S., Tang, E., Song, D., and Steinhardt, J. Measuring math- ematical problem solving with the math dataset. NeurIPS, 2021.
- Ma, Z., Ethayarajh, K., Thrush, T., Jain, S., Wu, L., Jia, R., Potts, C., Williams, A., and Kiela, D. Dynaboard: An evaluation-as-a-service platform for holistic next- generation benchmarking. Advances in Neural Infor- mation Processing Systems, 34:10351-10367, 2021.
- Olson, M., Wyner, A., and Berk, R. Modern neural net- works generalize on small data sets. Advances in neural information processing systems, 31, 2018.
- Pan, X., Zhang, M., Ji, S., and Yang, M. Privacy risks of general-purpose language models. In 2020 IEEE Sympo- sium on Security and Privacy (SP), pp. 1314-1331. IEEE, 2020.
- Reimers, N. and Gurevych, I. Sentence-bert: Sentence em- beddings using siamese bert-networks. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natu- ral Language Processing. Association for Computational Linguistics, 11 2019. URL https://arxiv.org/ abs/1908.10084. · arXiv
- Xu, H. and Koehn, P. Zipporah: a fast and scalable data cleaning system for noisy web-crawled parallel corpora. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 2945- 2950, 2017.
- Zanella-Béguelin, S., Wutschitz, L., Tople, S., Rühle, V., Paverd, A., Ohrimenko, O., Köpf, B., and Brockschmidt, M. Analyzing information leakage of updates to natu- ral language models. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM SIGSAC conference on computer and communications security, pp. 363-375, 2020.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Singh, S., Nan, Y., Wang, A., D'Souza, D., Kapoor, S., Üstün, A., Koyejo, S., Deng, Y., Longpre, S., Smith, N. A., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.20879 · Cited by 108
Dong, Y., Jiang, X., Liu, H., Jin, Z., Gu, B., Yang, M., & Li, G. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.15938 · Cited by 52
“To this end, LLM Decontaminator (Yang et al., 2023) detected the similarity of test data and training data based on other advanced LLMs.”
InfluentialDong, Y., Jiang, X., Liu, H., Jin, Z., Gu, B., Yang, M., & Li, G. (2024) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics ACL 2024 · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.findings-acl.716 · Cited by 52
BigCodeBench: Benchmarking Code Generation with Diverse Function Calls and Complex Instructions
Zhuo, T. Y., Vu, M. C., Chim, J., Hu, H., Yu, W., Widyasari, R., Yusuf, I. N. B., Zhan, H., He, J., Paul, I., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2406.15877 · Cited by 29
“To conclude the best practice, We will explore the evaluation results with multiple approaches like manual selection, hash-based deduplication [13] and LLM-based decontamination [65].”
MethodA Survey of Post-Training Scaling in Large Language Models
Lai, H., Liu, X., Gao, J., Cheng, J., Qi, Z., Xu, Y., Yao, S., Zhang, D., Du, J., Hou, Z., et al. (2025) · Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.acl-long.140 · Cited by 8
Benchmarking Benchmark Leakage in Large Language Models
Xu, R., Wang, Z., Fan, R.-Z., & Liu, P. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.18824 · Cited by 6
Search Arena: Analyzing Search-Augmented LLMs
Miroyan, M., Wu, T.-H., King, L., Li, T., Pan, J., Hu, X., Chiang, W.-L., Angelopoulos, A. N., Darrell, T., Norouzi, N., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.05334 · Cited by 1
“While crowd-sourced setups can mitigate concerns over data contamination in pretraining [64, 9], recent work has also highlighted potential biases and oversights in human preferences [12, 62].”
Self-citationSun, Y., Wang, H., Li, D., Wang, G., & Zhang, H. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.16402
“With access to the training corpus, contamination can be detected through n-gram overlap (Brown et al., 2020) or LLM-as-a-judge (Yang et al., 2023).”
Metadata
- Authors
- Yang, S., Chiang, W.-L., Zheng, L., Gonzalez, J. E., & Stoica, I.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- arXiv
- 2311.04850
- References
- 0
- Type
- Preprint
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