The DOI matches its DataCite record.
CLEAN-EVAL: Clean Evaluation on Contaminated Large Language Models
Abstract
We are currently in an era of fierce competition among various large language models (LLMs) continuously pushing the boundaries of benchmark performance. However, genuinely assessing the capabilities of these LLMs has become a challenging and critical issue due to potential data contamination, and it wastes dozens of time and effort for researchers and engineers to download and try those contaminated models. To save our precious time, we propose a novel and useful method, Clean-Eval, which mitigates the issue of data contamination and evaluates the LLMs in a cleaner manner. Clean-Eval employs an LLM to paraphrase and back-translate the contaminated data into a candidate set, generating expressions with the same meaning but in different surface forms. A semantic detector is then used to filter the generated low-quality samples to narrow down this candidate set. The best candidate is finally selected from this set based on the BLEURT score. According to human assessment, this best candidate is semantically similar to the original contamination data but expressed differently. All candidates can form a new benchmark to evaluate the model. Our experiments illustrate that Clean-Eval substantially restores the actual evaluation results on contaminated LLMs under both few-shot learning and fine-tuning scenarios.
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?
The work by Zhu et al. (2023) employs an LLM to paraphrase the contaminated dataset for evaluations.
“The work (Zhu et al., 2023) employs an LLM to paraphrase the contaminated dataset for evaluations.”
From Generalization or Memorization: Data Contamination and Trustworthy Evaluation for Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as Zhu 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: 12
- Karl Cobbe, Vineet Kosaraju, Mohammad Bavarian, Mark Chen, Heewoo Jun, Lukasz Kaiser, Matthias Plappert, Jerry Tworek, Jacob Hilton, Reiichiro Nakano, Christopher Hesse, and John Schulman. 2021. Training verifiers to solve math word prob- lems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168. · arXiv
- Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Steven Basart, Andy Zou, Mantas Mazeika, Dawn Song, and Jacob Stein- hardt. 2021. Measuring massive multitask language understanding. Proceedings of the International Con- ference on Learning Representations (ICLR).
- Yuzhen Huang, Yuzhuo Bai, Zhihao Zhu, Junlei Zhang, Jinghan Zhang, Tangjun Su, Junteng Liu, Chuancheng Lv, Yikai Zhang, Jiayi Lei, Yao Fu, Maosong Sun, and Junxian He. 2023. C-eval: A multi-level multi-discipline chinese evaluation suite for foundation models. In Advances in Neural Infor- mation Processing Systems.
- Chin-Yew Lin. 2004. ROUGE: A package for auto- matic evaluation of summaries. In Text Summariza- tion Branches Out, pages 74-81, Barcelona, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics.
- Andrew L. Maas, Raymond E. Daly, Peter T. Pham, Dan Huang, Andrew Y. Ng, and Christopher Potts. 2011. Learning word vectors for sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 142-150, Portland, Oregon, USA. Association for Computational Lin- guistics.
- Shashi Narayan, Shay B. Cohen, and Mirella Lapata. 2018. Don't give me the details, just the summary! topic-aware convolutional neural networks for ex- treme summarization. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Lan- guage Processing, pages 1797-1807, Brussels, Bel- gium. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
- Abigail See, Peter J. Liu, and Christopher D. Manning. 2017. Get to the point: Summarization with pointer- generator networks. In Proceedings of the 55th An- nual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1073- 1083, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computa- tional Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
- Thibault Sellam, Dipanjan Das, and Ankur Parikh. 2020. BLEURT: Learning robust metrics for text genera- tion. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7881-7892, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
- Rico Sennrich, Barry Haddow, and Alexandra Birch. 2016. Improving neural machine translation models with monolingual data. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 86-96, Berlin, Germany. Association for Computational Lin- guistics. · DOI · Paper page
- Alex Wang, Yada Pruksachatkun, Nikita Nangia, Aman- preet Singh, Julian Michael, Felix Hill, Omer Levy, and Samuel R Bowman. 2019a. Superglue: A stickier benchmark for general-purpose language understand- ing systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.00537. · arXiv
- Andy Way. 2013. Emerging use-cases for machine translation. In Proceedings of Translating and the Computer 35.
- Xiang Zhang, Junbo Jake Zhao, and Yann LeCun. 2015. Character-level convolutional networks for text clas- sification. In NIPS.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Dong, 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
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
Sun, Y., Wang, H., Li, D., Wang, G., & Zhang, H. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.16402
“In contrast, existing accuracy matching frameworks (Zhu et al., 2023b; 2024b; Ying et al., 2024) fail to confirm that the LLM is uncontaminated before manual contamination.”
Influential
Metadata
- Authors
- Zhu, W., Hao, H., He, Z., Song, Y., Zhang, Y., Hu, H., Wei, Y., Wang, R., & Lu, H.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- arXiv
- 2311.09154
- 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