arXiv preprint ·
What Should We Remove? Evaluating the Reliability and Costs of RLVR Data Decontamination
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) math corpora are routinely screened for benchmark overlap, but the reliability and data-loss costs of cleaning policies remain underexamined. We audit sixteen open RLVR math corpora comprising 1,673,514 corpus-specific training items against six benchmarks containing 1,949 questions. We evaluate eight policies based on exact, lexical, and semantic matching using 594 independently and blindly dual-reviewed training-benchmark pairs. Calibration and held-out sets have disjoint benchmark questions and training-example families. A separate review of all 83 candidate matches for 80 sampled training items measures item-level false removal. At cosine threshold 0.80, 52 of 59 sampled removals (88%) were confirmed false removals; this is not a demonstrated population rate. No semantic threshold in our preregistered grid (0.80-0.98) meets the 90% conservative-precision target on calibration. The existing judge-adjudicated policy achieves 98.1% resolved precision and 98.2% candidate-frame recall on held-out corpora. It has zero confirmed false removals among six sampled removals, with one unresolved case; this does not establish zero risk. Within the evaluated candidate frame, this policy offers a more favorable precision-recall balance than the semantic-threshold alternatives tested. Recall does not measure contamination outside the candidate frame. We release reviewed labels, per-policy decisions, and coverage accounting to support evaluation of cleaning reliability and cost rather than overlap counts alone.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Computation & Language / NLP
Learning When to Think: Utility-Guided Adaptive Reasoning for Efficient Text Retrieval
Self-Evolving Coding Agents via Harness-Policy Optimization
INCONVENIENT: A Benchmark to Assess LLM Generalization Capabilities from Convenience Samples
Prune the Leaky Neurons: Mitigating Private Data Leakage in Fine-Tuned LLMs via Joint-Embedding-Guided Pruning
ReviewPilot: A Multi-Agent System for Screening and Data Extraction in Systematic Reviews
Get the few papers worth your time in Computation & Language / NLP every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.