Language models are running out of high-quality training data, and even aggressively deduplicated corpora retain some amount of repetition. Earlier controlled studies predated Chinchilla-style scaling laws and could only measure the cost of repetition indirectly. We revisit repetition in the Chinchilla era, using a fitted no-repetition scaling law to report Compute-Equivalent Gain and Compute-Equivalent Loss. We show that under this modernized paradigm, repetition damage is systematic in three ways. First, holding compute allocated to repeated data constant, eval loss peaks at an intermediate repeat count \Rep; repeating a moderately sized subset a moderate number of times damages performance more than repeating a large subset a few times or a small subset many times. Second, the location of this peak is well-fit by a power law in model size; this scaling law reveals that the most damaging number of repeated data grows more quickly than compute. Finally, when repeated documents consume 10% of the FLOPs budget in a controlled exact-document repetition setting, the compute-equivalent loss can be large: on FineWeb-Edu-Dedup, the most damaging repeat count for a Qwen3-style 344M-parameter model at \OT=1 matches the loss of a no-repetition run using 67% of the FLOPs. We demonstrate that these phenomena are not language-model-specific, and can be analytically understood in a simple statistical model: a misspecified linear regression with verbatim duplicates reproduces the same qualitative loss peak, quantifying how such peaks can arise from a statistical tradeoff between memorization and generalization. Our findings add precision to the study of duplication in language models, allowing practitioners to quantify the wasted compute incurred by the presence and repeat structure of duplicates in pretraining corpora.
When a language model finds a sentence unusually cheap to predict, it is tempting to conclude that the sentence was in its training data. Almost every published test of that inference has had to guess which sentences were in the training data, the members, and which were not. This paper removes the guessing. Two model families, OLMo-2 and Pythia, publish their pretraining corpora, and a public index over those corpora returns the exact number of times any sentence appeared in each. Those counts make three questions answerable directly. The answers form a pincer, closing from two sides. At the duplication levels ordinary text actually has, five models from 1B to 13B parameters carry at most a faint trace of their own exposure. We measure that trace with a design that reads the same sentence through two models, which cancels fluency and quality by construction, and it comes to a rank correlation near -0.08, where -1 would be a perfect relation and 0 none. Where the trace does become strong, above roughly a thousand copies, the two corpora agree on which sentences those are, because they are the famous ones, so exposure can no longer be told apart from fame. Two further measurements show how apparent membership signal gets manufactured. A common way to build a non-member is to change one word of a member. The model does prefer the original, but the gap is the same whether the original appeared once or a hundred times, so what the model is rewarding is the author's word choice, not memory. Above a thousand copies the gap grows with model size on the twelve sentences we can test there, at the same boundary where the pincer closes. And swapping the controls for sentences that differ from the members in register moves a detector from 0.83 to 0.94 AUC, on a scale where 0.5 is a coin flip and 1.0 is perfect separation. We release the sentence banks, counts, and code.
As the supply of human-written text is exhausted, it has become standard practice to repeat language model training data. Prior work has studied data repetition for densely activated Transformers, but the effects of data repetition remains largely unexplored for recently dominant sparse architectures such as Mixture-of-Experts (MoE), despite their increased compute efficiency. We vary data repetition rates across single- and multi-domain data mixes, and across MoE settings, including expert count and granularity. We consistently find, for models ranging from 80M to 1B active (8.5B total) parameters, that MoEs degrade more rapidly under data repetition. This effect increases with sparsity, dictated by total rather than active parameters. While 80M dense models can repeat data over 8x with minimal degradation, MoEs instead begin to suffer at 4x, and deteriorate rapidly, ceding their performance benefits in all-unique data settings to underperform dense models after 32x. We experiment with existing regularization methods as a potential remedy. We find that some methods, such as dropout, can mitigate overfitting. In particular, with strong masking-based regularization, MoEs are able to outperform dense models even when data is repeated more than 64 times. However, no method fully matches the performance of all-unique training data. Finally, we analyze internal mechanisms correlated with MoE overfitting in high repetition regimes, and find that MoE routing universally stabilizes early in training, and that expert specialization correlates with overfitting to repeated data. In sum, our work addresses the adverse interactions between sparsity and data repetition: we present evidence for the core mechanisms of overfitting and its potential remediation, and suggest promising avenues for future methods to reduce over-specialization in model parameters by disrupting memorization patterns.
Scaling laws for dense LLMs under infinite data are well explored, but how sparsity interacts with limited data is not. In this work, we study sparse training in data-constrained regimes where limited unique tokens require multi-epoch training. Our experiments span models up to 1.92B parameters in the fitting set, sparsity up to 93.75%, unique data budgets up to 2.6B tokens, and total training tokens up to 41.6B over 16 epochs; we further validate extrapolation on held-out dense-equivalent models up to 7.68B parameters. We find that: 1. Sparse scaling in data-limited settings: We introduce a scaling law that models loss as a function of active parameters, unique tokens, data repetition, and sparsity, accurately predicting performance across compute and data budgets. 2. Delayed data saturation: sparse training postpones diminishing returns from repeated data, making multi-epoch training more effective. 3. Resource trade-offs: With fixed data, loss-optimal sparsity is moderate ~ 50%, while compute-optimal sparsity is higher and grows with data scale. Overall, sparsity is not just a tool for efficiency, but a mechanism for improving scaling trade-offs under data scarcity. Our code is available at: https://github.com/boqian333/sparse-dc-scaling.