mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Soft Contamination Means Benchmarks Test Shallow Generalization

arXiv 2602.12413 ↗First posted 12 Feb 2026cs.LG cs.AIcited by 8

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

If LLM training data is polluted with benchmark test data, then benchmark performance gives biased estimates of out-of-distribution (OOD) generalization. Typical decontamination filters use n-gram matching which fail to detect semantic duplicates: sentences with equivalent (or near-equivalent) content that are not close in string space. We study this soft contamination of training data by semantic duplicates. Among other experiments, we embed the Olmo3 training corpus and find that: 1) contamination remains widespread, e.g. we find semantic duplicates for 78% of CodeForces and exact duplicates for 50% of ZebraLogic problems; 2) including semantic duplicates of benchmark data in training does improve benchmark performance; and 3) when finetuning on duplicates of benchmark datapoints, performance also improves on truly-held-out datapoints from the same benchmark. We argue that recent benchmark gains are thus confounded: the prevalence of soft contamination means gains reflect both genuine capability improvements and the accumulation of test data and effective test data in growing training corpora.

Key facts. Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 26 of its 44 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 12 Feb 2026.

Builds on

26 of 44 references.

References · 26

  1. 2022Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 12,302
  2. 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 9,743
  3. 2020Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understandingcited by 7,768
  4. 2018Think you have Solved Question Answering? Try ARC, the AI2 Reasoning Challengecited by 4,710
  5. 2019HellaSwag: Can a Machine Really Finish Your Sentence?cited by 4,018
  6. 2021Program Synthesis with Large Language Modelscited by 3,509
  7. 2019PIQA: Reasoning about Physical Commonsense in Natural Languagecited by 2,818
  8. 2022Self-Instruct: Aligning Language Models with Self-Generated Instructionscited by 2,674
  9. 2020The Pile: An 800GB Dataset of Diverse Text for Language Modelingcited by 2,346
  10. 2019BoolQ: Exploring the Surprising Difficulty of Natural Yes/No Questionscited by 2,140
  11. 2019EDA: Easy Data Augmentation Techniques for Boosting Performance on Text Classification Taskscited by 800
  12. 2022MTEB: Massive Text Embedding Benchmarkcited by 623
14 more
  1. 2023Detecting Pretraining Data from Large Language Modelscited by 375
  2. 2022Data Contamination: From Memorization to Exploitationcited by 234
  3. 2023MuSR: Testing the Limits of Chain-of-thought with Multistep Soft Reasoningcited by 195
  4. 2023Rethinking Benchmark and Contamination for Language Models with Rephrased Samplescited by 192
  5. 2025ZebraLogic: On the Scaling Limits of LLMs for Logical Reasoningcited by 186
  6. 2024Rephrasing the Web: A Recipe for Compute and Data-Efficient Language Modelingcited by 156
  7. 2023What's In My Big Data?cited by 129
  8. 2024Investigating Data Contamination for Pre-training Language Modelscited by 91
  9. 2024Quantifying Contamination in Evaluating Code Generation Capabilities of Language Modelscited by 62
  10. 2025Llama-Embed-Nemotron-8B: A Universal Text Embedding Model for Multilingual and Cross-Lingual Taskscited by 46
  11. 2025LessLeak-Bench: A First Investigation of Data Leakage in LLMs Across 83 Software Engineering Benchmarkscited by 34
  12. 2022True Detective: A Deep Abductive Reasoning Benchmark Undoable for GPT-3 and Challenging for GPT-4cited by 19
  13. 2025Overestimation in LLM Evaluation: A Controlled Large-Scale Study on Data Contamination's Impact on Machine Translationcited by 13
  14. 2024The Mosaic Memory of Large Language Modelscited by 9

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 8.

8 papers.