<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>MMLU-CF: A Contamination-free Multi-task Language Understanding Benchmark · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2412.15194/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2412.15194/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>MMLU-CF: A Contamination-free Multi-task Language Understanding Benchmark — mentioned by EvgeniyZh</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42766496</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2412.15194:42766496</guid><pubDate>Mon, 20 Jan 2025 09:01:19 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; an unsubstantiated claim about widespread misconduct. I can&amp;#x27;t prove it, but I heard it from multiple people in the industry. High contamination levels for existing benchmarks, though [1,2]. Whether to believe that it is just as good as we can do, not doing the best possible decontamination, or done on purpose is up to you. &amp;gt; Yes, validation and test sets serve different purposes - that&amp;#x27;s precisely why reputable labs maintain strict separations between them. The verbal agreement promised not to train on the evaluation set. Using it as a validation set would not violate this agreement.…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2412.15194/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.CL</category></item></channel></rss>
