How much can we forget about Data Contamination?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.03249v2
• Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2024 03:33:26 GMT
• Title: How much can we forget about Data Contamination?
• Authors: Sebastian Bordt, Suraj Srinivas, Valentyn Boreiko, Ulrike von Luxburg,
• Abstract summary: Leakage of benchmark data into the training data has emerged as a significant challenge for large language models. We use experimental evidence and theoretical estimates to challenge the common assumption that small-scale contamination renders benchmark evaluations invalid.
• Score: 15.893161447368273
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: The leakage of benchmark data into the training data has emerged as a significant challenge for evaluating the capabilities of large language models (LLMs). In this work, we use experimental evidence and theoretical estimates to challenge the common assumption that small-scale contamination renders benchmark evaluations invalid. First, we experimentally quantify the magnitude of benchmark overfitting based on scaling along three dimensions: The number of model parameters (up to 1.6B), the number of times an example is seen (up to 144), and the number of training tokens (up to 40B). We find that if model and data follow the Chinchilla scaling laws, minor contamination indeed leads to overfitting. At the same time, even 144 times of contamination can be forgotten if the training data is scaled beyond five times Chinchilla, a regime characteristic of many modern LLMs. We then derive a simple theory of example forgetting via cumulative weight decay. It allows us to bound the number of gradient steps required to forget past data for any training run where we know the hyperparameters of AdamW. This indicates that many LLMs, including Llama 3, have forgotten the data seen at the beginning of training. Experimentally, we demonstrate that forgetting occurs faster than what is predicted by our bounds. Taken together, our results suggest that moderate amounts of contamination can be forgotten at the end of realistically scaled training runs.

Related papers

• How Much Knowledge Can You Pack into a LoRA Adapter without Harming LLM? [55.33467849079774]
  Low-rank adaptation (LoRA) is a popular and efficient training technique for updating or domain-specific adaptation of Large Language Models. We investigate how new facts can be incorporated into the LLM using LoRA without compromising the previously learned knowledge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-20T12:31:03Z)
• Large Language Monkeys: Scaling Inference Compute with Repeated Sampling [81.34900892130929]
  We explore inference compute as another axis for scaling, using the simple technique of repeatedly sampling candidate solutions from a model. Across multiple tasks and models, we observe that coverage scales with the number of samples over four orders of magnitude. In domains like coding and formal proofs, where answers can be automatically verified, these increases in coverage directly translate into improved performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-31T17:57:25Z)
• SwiftLearn: A Data-Efficient Training Method of Deep Learning Models using Importance Sampling [3.8330834108666667]
  We present SwiftLearn, a data-efficient approach to accelerate training of deep learning models. This subset is selected based on an importance criteria measured over the entire dataset during warm-up stages. We show that almost 90% of the data can be dropped achieving an end-to-end average speedup of 3.36x while keeping the average accuracy drop less than 0.92%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-25T22:51:01Z)
• Data Contamination Through the Lens of Time [21.933771085956426]
  Large language models (LLMs) are often supported by evaluating publicly available benchmarks. This practice raises concerns of data contamination, i.e., evaluating on examples that are explicitly or implicitly included in the training data. We conduct the first thorough longitudinal analysis of data contamination in LLMs by using the natural experiment of training cutoffs in GPT models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-16T17:51:29Z)
• Pruning Small Pre-Trained Weights Irreversibly and Monotonically Impairs "Difficult" Downstream Tasks in LLMs [71.56345106591789]
  It has been believed that weights in large language models (LLMs) contain significant redundancy. This paper presents a counter-argument: small-magnitude weights of pre-trained model weights encode vital knowledge essential for tackling difficult downstream tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-29T22:55:06Z)
• Exploring Weight Balancing on Long-Tailed Recognition Problem [32.01426831450348]
  Recognition problems in long-tailed data, in which the sample size per class is heavily skewed, have gained importance. Weight balancing, which combines classical regularization techniques with two-stage training, has been proposed. We analyze weight balancing by focusing on neural collapse and the cone effect at each training stage.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-26T01:45:19Z)
• Scaling Data-Constrained Language Models [137.17302576977346]
  We investigate scaling language models in data-constrained regimes. We find that with constrained data for a fixed compute budget, training with up to 4 epochs of repeated data yields negligible changes to loss compared to having unique data. We propose and empirically validate a scaling law for compute optimality that accounts for the decreasing value of repeated tokens and excess parameters.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-25T17:18:55Z)
• To Repeat or Not To Repeat: Insights from Scaling LLM under Token-Crisis [50.31589712761807]
  Large language models (LLMs) are notoriously token-hungry during pre-training, and high-quality text data on the web is approaching its scaling limit for LLMs. We investigate the consequences of repeating pre-training data, revealing that the model is susceptible to overfitting. Second, we examine the key factors contributing to multi-epoch degradation, finding that significant factors include dataset size, model parameters, and training objectives.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-22T17:02:15Z)
• Distilling Step-by-Step! Outperforming Larger Language Models with Less Training Data and Smaller Model Sizes [91.58845026796149]
  We introduce Distilling step-by-step, a new mechanism that trains small models that outperform large language models. We present three findings across 4 NLP benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-03T17:50:56Z)
• Input Perturbation Reduces Exposure Bias in Diffusion Models [41.483581603727444]
  We show that a long sampling chain leads to an error accumulation phenomenon, similar to the exposure bias problem in autoregressive text generation. We propose a very simple but effective training regularization, consisting in perturbing the ground truth samples to simulate the inference time prediction errors. We empirically show that, without affecting the recall and precision, the proposed input perturbation leads to a significant improvement in the sample quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-27T13:34:54Z)

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.