{"id":91,"identifier":"LOR-00091","url":"https://lifeofresearch.com/articles/91","title":"A Contamination Flag Is Not an Inflation Estimate: What Benchmark Contamination Detectors Certify, What Decontamination Is Meant to Buy, and Why the Clean-Subset Comparison That Joins Them Is Biased From Both Sides","abstract":"(c) 2026 Pranay Mahendrakar. Licensed under CC BY 4.0.\nAlmost every large language model report now includes a contamination analysis: benchmark items that overlap the training corpus are flagged, the model is rescored on the unflagged remainder, and a small gap is read as evidence that the headline numbers stand. Two research literatures sit behind that ritual and rarely meet. One builds detectors that decide whether an item, or a benchmark, was seen in training. The other asks how much exposure actually moves a score. This paper argues that the two answer different questions, and that the step which joins them in practice - comparing the full benchmark with its clean subset - estimates neither. It separates three quantities that the word contamination covers: exposure of an item or a variant of it in training, a detectable trace of that exposure in the model, and inflation of the score relative to the same model trained without it. A short derivation shows that the clean-subset gap equals the inflation, in general, only if unflagged items carry no inflation and flagged and unflagged items would have scored alike without exposure (or if the two biases happen to cancel exactly). The published record contradicts both conditions. Exposure to some items raises scores on items never seen; contamination can be trained away and then resurfaced by post-training; the GPT-3 report found no evidence that contamination level and the clean-versus-full difference were correlated; and in the Llama 3 report a high flag rate was necessary but far from sufficient for a large estimated gain. The paper then proposes an estimand-first audit and names the studies that would settle what decontamination buys. The analysis draws throughout on published measurements, each credited to the study that reported it.","authors":[{"name":"Pranay Mahendrakar","affiliation":"SONYTECH","orcid":"0009-0003-7224-029X"}],"type":"article","license":"CC-BY-4.0","keywords":["benchmark contamination","data contamination detection","decontamination","membership inference","evaluation validity","estimated performance gain","semantic duplicates","language model evaluation"],"publication_date":"2026-10-08","version":1,"views":8,"downloads":6,"created_at":"2026-10-08 10:41:45","doi":"10.5281/zenodo.23225367","source":"Zenodo","source_url":"https://zenodo.org/records/23225367","files":[{"id":91,"name":"a-contamination-flag-is-not-an-effect.pdf","size":398897,"mime":"application/pdf","downloads":6,"download_url":"https://lifeofresearch.com/articles/91/files/91/a-contamination-flag-is-not-an-effect.pdf"}]}