Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Search-Time Data Contamination

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 2508.13180 v1 pith:VUH64C5C submitted 2025-08-12 cs.AI cs.LG

Search-Time Data Contamination

classification cs.AI cs.LG
keywords evaluationagentshuggingfacebenchmarkdatacontaminationdatasetssearch-based
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Data contamination refers to the leakage of evaluation data into model training data, resulting in overfitting to supposedly held-out test sets and compromising test validity. We identify an analogous issue, search-time contamination (STC), in evaluating search-based LLM agents which use tools to gather information from online sources when answering user queries. STC occurs when the retrieval step surfaces a source containing the test question (or a near-duplicate) alongside its answer, enabling agents to copy rather than genuinely infer or reason, undermining benchmark integrity. We find that HuggingFace, an online platform hosting evaluation datasets, appears among retrieved sources in search based agent logs. Consequently, agents often explicitly acknowledge discovering question answer pairs from HuggingFace within their reasoning chains. On three commonly used capability benchmarks: Humanity's Last Exam (HLE), SimpleQA, and GPQA, we demonstrate that for approximately 3% of questions, search-based agents directly find the datasets with ground truth labels on HuggingFace. When millions of evaluation queries target the same benchmark, even small, repeated leaks can accelerate the benchmark's obsolescence, shortening its intended lifecycle. After HuggingFace is blocked, we observe a drop in accuracy on the contaminated subset of approximately 15%. We further show through ablation experiments that publicly accessible evaluation datasets on HuggingFace may not be the sole source of STC. To this end, we conclude by proposing best practices for benchmark design and result reporting to address this novel form of leakage and ensure trustworthy evaluation of search-based LLM agents. To facilitate the auditing of evaluation results, we also publicly release the complete logs from our experiments.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Reasoning Gets Harder for LLMs Inside A Dialogue

    cs.CL 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    LLMs show a consistent performance drop on arithmetic, spatial, and temporal reasoning tasks when framed in multi-turn dialogues versus isolated settings, demonstrated by the new BOULDER benchmark across eight travel-...

  2. ProfBench: Multi-Domain Rubrics requiring Professional Knowledge to Answer and Judge

    cs.CL 2025-10 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    ProfBench is a new multi-domain benchmark with human-expert rubrics for judging LLM responses on professional tasks, showing top models reach only 65.9% performance while providing cheap LLM judges that reduce evaluat...