aiqbench analysis
The paper audits 16 open RLVR math training corpora for benchmark overlap and finds that semantic-similarity cleaning is unreliable: at cosine 0.80, 88% of sampled removals were false. The judge-adjudicated policy performed better within its candidate frame, but the authors caution that recall does not capture contamination outside that frame and that zero observed false removals does not establish zero risk. Readers building or evaluating reasoning-model training pipelines should weigh removal precision and data loss, not just overlap counts.
What Should We Remove? Evaluating the Reliability and Costs of RLVR Data Decontamination
arXiv:2610.21229v1 Announce Type: new 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.
Title:What Should We Remove? Evaluating the Reliability and Costs of RLVR Data Decontamination
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.
Computation and Language (cs.CL); Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2610.21229 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2610.21229v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.21229 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 321 words
Related coverage

Fine-tune NVIDIA Nemotron 3 models with Amazon SageMaker AI serverless model customization
AWS · Jul 10, 2026
J++ Lens: Jacobian Filtering Enables More Faithful Workspace Lenses
LessWrong · Oct 8, 2026

[AINews] not much happened today
Latent Space · Sep 18, 2026

A Candid Abacus AI Review: The All-in-One AI Platform for Professionals & Enterprises
KDnuggets · Sep 10, 2026