Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.21229

What Should We Remove? Evaluating the Reliability and Costs of RLVR Data Decontamination

Esther Xin
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

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.

Explore related subjects

cs.CLcs.LG

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Esther Xin. 2026-10-15. What Should We Remove? Evaluating the Reliability and Costs of RLVR Data Decontamination. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.21229

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Learning From How Humans Correct

In industry NLP application, our manually labeled data has a certain number of noisy data. We present a simple method to find the noisy data and relabel them manually, meanwhile we collect the correction information. Then we present novel method to incorporate the human correction information into deep learning model. Human know how to correct noisy data. So the correction information can be inject into deep learning model. We do the experiment on our own text classification dataset, which is manually labeled, because we need to relabel the noisy data in our dataset for our industry application. The experiment result shows that our learn-on-correction method improve the classification accuracy from 91.7% to 92.5% in test dataset. The 91.7% accuracy is trained on the corrected dataset, which improve the baseline from 83.3% to 91.7% in test dataset. The accuracy under human evaluation achieves more than 97%.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

LLMR: Knowledge Distillation with a Large Language Model-Induced Reward

Large language models have become increasingly popular and demonstrated remarkable performance in various natural language processing (NLP) tasks. However, these models are typically computationally expensive and difficult to be deployed in resource-constrained environments. In this paper, we propose LLMR, a novel knowledge distillation (KD) method based on a reward function induced from large language models. We conducted experiments on multiple datasets in the dialogue generation and summarization tasks. Empirical results demonstrate that our LLMR approach consistently outperforms traditional KD methods in different tasks and datasets.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

C-VARC: A Large-Scale Chinese Value Rule Corpus for Value Alignment of Large Language Models

Aligning LLMs with Chinese values requires culturally grounded resources that connect abstract values to concrete behavioral guidance. We introduce C-VARC, a Chinese Value Rule Corpus containing 257,609 Rules of Thumb (RoTs) organized into three dimensions, 12 core values, and 50 derived values. Among them, 36,000 rules underwent independent human review by two annotators (Cohen's kappa>0.85), with disagreements adjudicated by a third. C-VARC supports reusable rule-driven pipelines for both value evaluation and model alignment. Compared with abstract-value guidance, RoT guidance produces greater semantic and character-level n-gram diversity. Across five non-political sensitive themes, the seven-model average selection rate for C-VARC-consistent options is at least 72.0%, while five Chinese annotators show overall rates of at least 87.5%. Conflicting RoT pairs further enable the construction of 404,505 moral dilemmas, with 7,191 of 10,998 evaluated cases eliciting cross-model disagreement. For alignment, C-VARC-Query consistently outperforms matched Value-only supervision on CMoralEval across both Qwen3-8B and Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct, with average gains of 2.97 and 12.82 percentage points, respectively, and positive paired gains across all three seeds for both backbones. It also improves CValues and C-Eval over Value-only supervision on both backbones. C-VARC thus provides a scalable Chinese normative resource for constructing both value-evaluation and alignment supervision.

cs.CL↗