Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

Language model developers should report train-test overlap

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2410.08385 v2 pith:4QXK2UJK submitted 2024-10-10 cs.LG cs.AIcs.CYcs.SE

classification cs.LGcs.AIcs.CYcs.SE
keywords overlaptrain-testdevelopersmodellanguagedatapublicreport
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Language models are extensively evaluated, but correctly interpreting evaluation results requires knowledge of train-test overlap which refers to the extent to which the language model is trained on the very data it is being tested on. The public currently lacks adequate information about train-test overlap: most models have no public train-test overlap statistics, and third parties cannot directly measure train-test overlap since they do not have access to the training data. To make this clear, we document the practices of 30 model developers, finding that just 9 developers report train-test overlap: 4 developers release training data under open-source licenses, enabling the community to directly measure train-test overlap, and 5 developers publish their train-test overlap methodology and statistics. By engaging with language model developers, we provide novel information about train-test overlap for three additional developers. Overall, we take the position that language model developers should publish train-test overlap statistics and/or training data whenever they report evaluation results on public test sets. We hope our work increases transparency into train-test overlap to increase the community-wide trust in model evaluations.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Crosslingual Reasoning through Test-Time Scaling

    cs.CL 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Test-time scaling of English-centric reasoning models improves multilingual math accuracy for models at 3B parameters and above, with English-heavy 'quote-and-think' reasoning, but gains do not transfer to cultural co...

  2. A Conceptual Framework for AI Capability Evaluations

    cs.AI 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A descriptive conceptual framework with seven elements (target, task, subject, inputs, instance, measurement, result analysis) for systematizing analysis of AI capability evaluations.

  3. In Which Areas of Technical AI Safety Could Geopolitical Rivals Cooperate?

    cs.CY 2025-04 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Based on a four-risk typology, the paper concludes that verification mechanisms and codified protocols are the least risky areas for cooperation between geopolitical rivals on technical AI safety.

  4. Can We Trust AI Benchmarks? An Interdisciplinary Review of Current Issues in AI Evaluation

    cs.AI 2025-02 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A meta-review of about 110 critical studies finds nine systemic weaknesses in AI benchmarking and concludes that benchmarks are receiving disproportionate trust in AI governance.

Pith tools