mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Language model developers should report train-test overlap

arXiv 2410.08385 ↗First posted 10 Oct 2024cs.LG cs.AI cs.CYcited by 16

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Language models are extensively evaluated, but correctly interpreting evaluation results requires knowledge of train-test overlap which refers to the extent to which the language model is trained on the very data it is being tested on. The public currently lacks adequate information about train-test overlap: most models have no public train-test overlap statistics, and third parties cannot directly measure train-test overlap since they do not have access to the training data. To make this clear, we document the practices of 30 model developers, finding that just 9 developers report train-test overlap: 4 developers release training data under open-source licenses, enabling the community to directly measure train-test overlap, and 5 developers publish their train-test overlap methodology and statistics. By engaging with language model developers, we provide novel information about train-test overlap for three additional developers. Overall, we take the position that language model developers should publish train-test overlap statistics and/or training data whenever they report evaluation results on public test sets. We hope our work increases transparency into train-test overlap to increase the community-wide trust in model evaluations.

Key facts. Cited by 16 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 21 of its 47 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 10 Oct 2024.

Builds on

21 of 47 references.

References · 21

  1. 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,419
  2. 2023GPT-4 Technical Reportcited by 18,396
  3. 2023LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Modelscited by 14,132
  4. 2021Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Datasetcited by 5,371
  5. 2016SQuAD: 100,000+ Questions for Machine Comprehension of Textcited by 4,148
  6. 2023GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A Benchmarkcited by 2,879
  7. 2020The Pile: An 800GB Dataset of Diverse Text for Language Modelingcited by 2,411
  8. 2019Megatron-LM: Training Multi-Billion Parameter Language Models Using Model Parallelismcited by 1,868
  9. 2018Know What You Don't Know: Unanswerable Questions for SQuADcited by 1,554
  10. 2023Detecting Pretraining Data from Large Language Modelscited by 387
  11. 2023Proving Test Set Contamination in Black Box Language Modelscited by 230
  12. 2020Question and Answer Test-Train Overlap in Open-Domain Question Answering Datasetscited by 138
9 more
  1. 2024Generalization or Memorization: Data Contamination and Trustworthy Evaluation for Large Language Modelscited by 122
  2. 2024Granite Code Models: A Family of Open Foundation Models for Code Intelligencecited by 117
  3. 2024Investigating Data Contamination for Pre-training Language Modelscited by 91
  4. 2024Open-LLM-Leaderboard: From Multi-choice to Open-style Questions for LLMs Evaluation, Benchmark, and Arenacited by 76
  5. 2021Memorization vs. Generalization: Quantifying Data Leakage in NLP Performance Evaluationcited by 70
  6. 2023The Foundation Model Transparency Indexcited by 66
  7. 2023Ecosystem Graphs: The Social Footprint of Foundation Modelscited by 32
  8. 2023Koala: An Index for Quantifying Overlaps with Pre-training Corporacited by 19
  9. 2023A benchmark for toxic comment classification on Civil Comments datasetcited by 11

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2024: 3; 2025: 9; 2026: 4.

16 papers.

Sort:

By area: