mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Correcting test set contamination by spiking the training data

arXiv 2605.24818 ↗First posted 24 May 2026stat.ME cs.CL cs.LGcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

The literature on test set contamination largely focuses on detection, but the correction of contaminated test scores is underexplored. Our core proposal is to spike the training data by intentionally contaminating some test examples at known rates. The spiked examples can then be used to calibrate predictors of model memorization which enable principled statistical correction of inflated test scores. To evaluate different correction estimators, we first present a simulation framework based on the Hubble models. Hubble models come in minimal pairs, where the perturbed model was deliberately contaminated with several test sets, while the standard model was not, serving as the counterfactual and correction target. We consider estimators that use information from a memorization predictor, correctness predictor, or both. In simulation, we establish basic statistical intuitions and show that estimators leveraging memorization and correctness information are better than naive estimation which makes no correction at all. We then instantiate several memorization and correctness predictors, and find that simple predictors such as Platt-scaled membership inference metrics provide good signal for correction. Finally, we examine the practical considerations of spiking. Simple memorization predictors need no more than 10 examples for calibration and often transfer from one dataset to another. Taken together, spiking is a promising solution for test set contamination.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 35 of its 51 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 May 2026.

Builds on

35 of 51 references.

References · 35

  1. 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,372
  2. 2020Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understandingcited by 7,963
  3. 2017On Calibration of Modern Neural Networkscited by 4,960
  4. 2019HellaSwag: Can a Machine Really Finish Your Sentence?cited by 4,100
  5. 2019PIQA: Reasoning about Physical Commonsense in Natural Languagecited by 2,883
  6. 2016Membership Inference Attacks against Machine Learning Modelscited by 2,281
  7. 2020Extracting Training Data from Large Language Modelscited by 2,189
  8. 2023Pythia: A Suite for Analyzing Large Language Models Across Training and Scalingcited by 1,786
  9. 2019Do ImageNet Classifiers Generalize to ImageNet?cited by 1,515
  10. 2022When Not to Trust Language Models: Investigating Effectiveness of Parametric and Non-Parametric Memoriescited by 1,128
  11. 2023Detecting Pretraining Data from Large Language Modelscited by 387
  12. 2023NLP Evaluation in trouble: On the Need to Measure LLM Data Contamination for each Benchmarkcited by 348
23 more
  1. 2021Understanding Dataset Difficulty with V-Usable Informationcited by 291
  2. 2022Data Contamination: From Memorization to Exploitationcited by 236
  3. 2023Proving Test Set Contamination in Black Box Language Modelscited by 230
  4. 2023Rethinking Benchmark and Contamination for Language Models with Rephrased Samplescited by 195
  5. 2024Do Membership Inference Attacks Work on Large Language Models?cited by 195
  6. 2021Counterfactual Memorization in Neural Language Modelscited by 156
  7. 2023Stop Uploading Test Data in Plain Text: Practical Strategies for Mitigating Data Contamination by Evaluation Benchmarkscited by 142
  8. 2023What's In My Big Data?cited by 129
  9. 2024Black-Box Access is Insufficient for Rigorous AI Auditscited by 126
  10. 2023Privacy Auditing with One (1) Training Runcited by 123
  11. 2023Task Contamination: Language Models May Not Be Few-Shot Anymorecited by 99
  12. 2024Investigating Data Contamination for Pre-training Language Modelscited by 91
  13. 2023An Open Source Data Contamination Report for Large Language Modelscited by 51
  14. 2023Data Contamination Quiz: A Tool to Detect and Estimate Contamination in Large Language Modelscited by 47
  15. 2024Proving membership in LLM pretraining data via data watermarkscited by 40
  16. 2024Benchmarks as Microscopes: A Call for Model Metrologycited by 35
  17. 2024ConStat: Performance-Based Contamination Detection in Large Language Modelscited by 33
  18. 2025Reliable and Efficient Amortized Model-based Evaluationcited by 31
  19. 2025Hubble: a Model Suite to Advance the Study of LLM Memorizationcited by 17
  20. 2024How Much Can We Forget about Data Contamination?cited by 14
  21. 2025Independence Tests for Language Modelscited by 10
  22. 2025Train Once, Answer All: Many Pretraining Experiments for the Cost of Onecited by 6
  23. 2024A Tutorial on Doubly Robust Learning for Causal Inferencecited by 2

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025On The Fragility of Benchmark Contamination Detection in Reasoning Models
  2. 2026The Impact of Post-training on Data Contamination
  3. 2025Test of Time: Rethinking Temporal Signal of Benchmark Contamination
  4. 2023On student-teacher deviations in distillation: does it pay to disobey?
  5. 2026Why Some Models Resist Unlearning: A Linear Stability Perspective
  6. 2024Corrective Machine Unlearning
  7. 2026Learn from Your Mistakes: Self-Correcting Masked Diffusion Models
  8. 2025A Closer Look on Memorization in Tabular Diffusion Model: A Data-Centric Perspective