ConStat: Performance-Based Contamination Detection in Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2405.16281v1
• Date: Sat, 25 May 2024 15:36:37 GMT
• Title: ConStat: Performance-Based Contamination Detection in Large Language Models
• Authors: Jasper Dekoninck, Mark Niklas Müller, Martin Vechev,
• Abstract summary: ConStat is a statistical method that reliably detects and quantifies contamination by comparing performance between a primary and reference benchmark relative to a set of reference models. We demonstrate the effectiveness of ConStat in an extensive evaluation of diverse model architectures, benchmarks, and contamination scenarios.
• Score: 7.305342793164905
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Public benchmarks play an essential role in the evaluation of large language models. However, data contamination can lead to inflated performance, rendering them unreliable for model comparison. It is therefore crucial to detect contamination and estimate its impact on measured performance. Unfortunately, existing detection methods can be easily evaded and fail to quantify contamination. To overcome these limitations, we propose a novel definition of contamination as artificially inflated and non-generalizing benchmark performance instead of the inclusion of benchmark samples in the training data. This perspective enables us to detect any model with inflated performance, i.e., performance that does not generalize to rephrased samples, synthetic samples from the same distribution, or different benchmarks for the same task. Based on this insight, we develop ConStat, a statistical method that reliably detects and quantifies contamination by comparing performance between a primary and reference benchmark relative to a set of reference models. We demonstrate the effectiveness of ConStat in an extensive evaluation of diverse model architectures, benchmarks, and contamination scenarios and find high levels of contamination in multiple popular models including Mistral, Llama, Yi, and the top-3 Open LLM Leaderboard models.

Related papers

• LiveXiv -- A Multi-Modal Live Benchmark Based on Arxiv Papers Content [62.816876067499415]
  We propose LiveXiv: a scalable evolving live benchmark based on scientific ArXiv papers. LiveXiv accesses domain-specific manuscripts at any given timestamp and proposes to automatically generate visual question-answer pairs. We benchmark multiple open and proprietary Large Multi-modal Models (LMMs) on the first version of our benchmark, showing its challenging nature and exposing the models true abilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-14T17:51:23Z)
• PaCoST: Paired Confidence Significance Testing for Benchmark Contamination Detection in Large Language Models [41.772263447213234]
  Large language models (LLMs) are known to be trained on vast amounts of data, which may unintentionally or intentionally include data from commonly used benchmarks. This inclusion can lead to cheatingly high scores on model leaderboards, yet result in disappointing performance in real-world applications. We introduce PaCoST, a Paired Confidence Significance Testing to effectively detect benchmark contamination in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-26T13:12:40Z)
• Evading Data Contamination Detection for Language Models is (too) Easy [9.024665800235855]
  Large language models can inadvertently lead to contamination with public benchmarks. We propose a categorization of both model providers and contamination detection methods. This reveals vulnerabilities in existing methods that we exploit with EAL.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-05T09:10:32Z)
• Estimating Model Performance Under Covariate Shift Without Labels [9.804680621164168]
  We introduce Probabilistic Adaptive Performance Estimation (PAPE) for evaluating classification models on unlabeled data. PAPE provides more accurate performance estimates than other evaluated methodologies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-16T13:29:30Z)
• Rethinking Benchmark and Contamination for Language Models with Rephrased Samples [49.18977581962162]
  Large language models are increasingly trained on all the data ever produced by humans. Many have raised concerns about the trustworthiness of public benchmarks due to potential contamination in pre-training or fine-tuning datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-08T17:35:20Z)
• NLP Evaluation in trouble: On the Need to Measure LLM Data Contamination for each Benchmark [19.875954121100005]
  We argue that the classical evaluation on Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks using annotated benchmarks is in trouble. The worst kind of data contamination happens when a Large Language Model (LLM) is trained on the test split of a benchmark, and then evaluated in the same benchmark. This position paper defines different levels of data contamination and argues for a community effort.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-27T09:48:29Z)
• An Open Source Data Contamination Report for Large Language Models [21.553915781660905]
  This paper presents an extensive data contamination report for over 15 popular large language models. We also introduce an open-source pipeline that enables the community to perform contamination analysis on customised data and models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-26T17:11:42Z)
• Discrete Diffusion Modeling by Estimating the Ratios of the Data Distribution [67.9215891673174]
  We propose score entropy as a novel loss that naturally extends score matching to discrete spaces. We test our Score Entropy Discrete Diffusion models on standard language modeling tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-25T17:59:12Z)
• Fake It Till You Make It: Near-Distribution Novelty Detection by Score-Based Generative Models [54.182955830194445]
  existing models either fail or face a dramatic drop under the so-called near-distribution" setting. We propose to exploit a score-based generative model to produce synthetic near-distribution anomalous data. Our method improves the near-distribution novelty detection by 6% and passes the state-of-the-art by 1% to 5% across nine novelty detection benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-28T02:02:53Z)
• Understanding Factual Errors in Summarization: Errors, Summarizers, Datasets, Error Detectors [105.12462629663757]
  In this work, we aggregate factuality error annotations from nine existing datasets and stratify them according to the underlying summarization model. We compare performance of state-of-the-art factuality metrics, including recent ChatGPT-based metrics, on this stratified benchmark and show that their performance varies significantly across different types of summarization models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-25T15:26:48Z)
• How Faithful is your Synthetic Data? Sample-level Metrics for Evaluating and Auditing Generative Models [95.8037674226622]
  We introduce a 3-dimensional evaluation metric that characterizes the fidelity, diversity and generalization performance of any generative model in a domain-agnostic fashion. Our metric unifies statistical divergence measures with precision-recall analysis, enabling sample- and distribution-level diagnoses of model fidelity and diversity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-17T18:25:30Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.