mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Uncertainty-based Debiasing and Unlearning for Decontamination

arXiv 2606.23313 ↗First posted 22 Jun 2026cs.CY cs.CLcited by 0

On the map: LLM safety and security → Machine unlearning

Abstract (arXiv)

Benchmark-based evaluation is the dominant paradigm for assessing large language model (LLM) capabilities, yet data contamination inflates reported performance and undermines fair comparison. Existing decontamination methods are evaluated solely through aggregate accuracy, which can obscure substantial differences in per-sample model behaviour, and many require access to an uncontaminated model. In this paper, we propose a sample-level evaluation framework for decontamination that complements accuracy-based assessment with distributional distance metrics, measuring how closely a decontaminated model recovers the output distribution of an uncontaminated model on each sample. Building on this framework, we introduce Uncertainty-Based Decontamination (UBD), a family of methods that leverage deep ensembles of the contaminated model to estimate per-sample memorization without requiring a uncontaminated model or knowledge of which samples are contaminated. UBD estimates a per-sample correction scalar from ensemble uncertainty, which is used to construct a debiased target distribution that suppresses the inflated probability mass on correct answers induced by contamination. This target is then used either as a post-hoc output correction (debiasing) or as a soft training signal for parameter update (unlearning). Experiments on MMLU-Pro and MATH-MCQA across multiple LLM backbones demonstrate that UBD produces per-sample output distributions substantially closer to those of an uncontaminated model than paraphrasing or choice-permutation baselines, while preserving model performance on uncontaminated data.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Machine unlearning, one of 12 directions in LLM safety and security. Builds on 14 of its 23 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 22 Jun 2026.

Builds on

14 of 23 references.

References · 14

  1. 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,192
  2. 2020Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understandingcited by 7,768
  3. 2017What Uncertainties Do We Need in Bayesian Deep Learning for Computer Vision?cited by 2,335
  4. 2018CommonsenseQA: A Question Answering Challenge Targeting Commonsense Knowledgecited by 1,793
  5. 2024MMLU-Pro: A More Robust and Challenging Multi-Task Language Understanding Benchmarkcited by 1,758
  6. 2024Magpie: Alignment Data Synthesis from Scratch by Prompting Aligned LLMs with Nothingcited by 341
  7. 2023NLP Evaluation in trouble: On the Need to Measure LLM Data Contamination for each Benchmarkcited by 339
  8. 2024Leak, Cheat, Repeat: Data Contamination and Evaluation Malpractices in Closed-Source LLMscited by 224
  9. 2019Ensemble Distribution Distillationcited by 158
  10. 2024AntiLeakBench: Preventing Data Contamination by Automatically Constructing Benchmarks with Updated Real-World Knowledgecited by 42
  11. 2024Data Contamination Can Cross Language Barrierscited by 26
  12. 2024Does Data Contamination Detection Work (Well) for LLMs? A Survey and Evaluation on Detection Assumptionscited by 26
2 more
  1. 2026When Benchmarks Leak: Inference-Time Decontamination for LLMscited by 5
  2. 2025Establishing Trustworthy LLM Evaluation via Shortcut Neuron Analysiscited by 3

Built on by

Not cited yet.