Time Travel in LLMs: Tracing Data Contamination in Large Language Models

Authors: Shahriar Golchin, Mihai Surdeanu

v1 preprint
License: CC BY 4.0

Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 2308.08493v1

  • Comprehensive Summary
  • Key points
  • Layman's Summary
  • Blog article
Researchers propose method to identify data contamination in LLMs through guided instruction prompts and performance metrics. The approach involves assessing individual instances and entire dataset partitions for potential contamination. GPT-4 is evaluated using few-shot In-context Learning Prompt and compared to reference text. Detailed descriptions of datasets like IMDB Movie Reviews, AG News, WNLI, SAMSum, and XSum provide context for the study. Findings reveal contamination in GPT-4 with AG News, WNLI, and XSum datasets. High accuracy achieved in detecting contamination compared to manual evaluation by human experts.
AI-generated keywords: Data Contamination Large Language Models (LLMs) Guided Instruction Prompts Performance Metrics Few-shot In-context Learning Prompt

AI-generated Key Points

  • Researchers propose method to identify data contamination in LLMs through guided instruction prompts and performance metrics
  • Approach involves assessing individual instances and entire dataset partitions for potential contamination
  • GPT-4 is evaluated using few-shot In-context Learning Prompt and compared to reference text
  • Detailed descriptions of datasets like IMDB Movie Reviews, AG News, WNLI, SAMSum, and XSum provide context for the study
  • Findings reveal contamination in GPT-4 with AG News, WNLI, and XSum datasets
  • High accuracy achieved in detecting contamination compared to manual evaluation by human experts
Also access our AI generated: Comprehensive summary, Lay summary, Blog-like article; or ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant.

Abstract: Data contamination, i.e., the presence of test data from downstream tasks in the training data of large language models (LLMs), is a potential major issue in understanding LLMs' effectiveness on other tasks. We propose a straightforward yet effective method for identifying data contamination within LLMs. At its core, our approach starts by identifying potential contamination in individual instances that are drawn from a small random sample; using this information, our approach then assesses if an entire dataset partition is contaminated. To estimate contamination of individual instances, we employ "guided instruction:" a prompt consisting of the dataset name, partition type, and the initial segment of a reference instance, asking the LLM to complete it. An instance is flagged as contaminated if the LLM's output either exactly or closely matches the latter segment of the reference. To understand if an entire partition is contaminated, we propose two ideas. The first idea marks a dataset partition as contaminated if the average overlap score with the reference instances (as measured by ROUGE or BLEURT) is statistically significantly better with the guided instruction vs. a general instruction that does not include the dataset and partition name. The second idea marks a dataset as contaminated if a classifier based on GPT-4 with in-context learning prompting marks multiple instances as contaminated. Our best method achieves an accuracy between 92% and 100% in detecting if an LLM is contaminated with seven datasets, containing train and test/validation partitions, when contrasted with manual evaluation by human expert. Further, our findings indicate that GPT-4 is contaminated with AG News, WNLI, and XSum datasets.

Submitted to arXiv on 16 Aug. 2023

Tools for this paper

Explain it differently 3 free rewrites left today
Export BibTeX · RIS (Zotero, Mendeley, EndNote) · Markdown (Notion, Obsidian) · Premium
Citation alerts Premium
Journal club Slides to present it Premium
For journalists Press kit and hype check Premium

Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant

You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.

Figures and plots

Ask about a figure by number or use its question button to request visual analysis. Up to two figures and four image panels per question. Values read from plots are approximate; check the original data.

AI assistant instructions?

Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting

Score: 0

Why do we need votes?

Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.

The previous summary was created more than a year ago and can be re-run (if necessary) by clicking on the Run button below.

Similar papers summarized with our AI tools

Navigate through even more similar papers through a

tree representation

Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.