Is spectral predictability enough? Testing Ω-matching for synthetic pretraining under distribution shift

Synthetic tasks are increasingly used both as probes of language-model capability and as pretraining data. Both uses are often justified by loss reduction: falling loss is treated as informative, and faster loss reduction with more sampling as evidence that a task is worth sampling. We separate three signals. A task is diagnostic when its loss tracks global pretraining progress; it is teachable when its loss responds to its own token budget; and a data source transfers when including it improves a downstream target. We study controlled pretraining in which 70% of the corpus is fixed general Python and the remaining 30% is a simplex over three source families: OpenCodeInstruct, a curated suite of 12 code-adjacent synthetic tasks, and 15 literature-derived probe tasks. Across a task-budget sweep we detect teachability for 14 of 27 tasks, with a sharp asymmetry between the two synthetic families (10/12 curated versus 4/15 literature-derived). Teachability and downstream transfer give different rankings. On the mixture-simplex edge between the curated suite and OpenCodeInstruct, HumanEval pass@20 after a fixed fine-tuning stage rises from 15.9 at pure curated data to its highest observed value, 22.6, at a mixture that is 75% OpenCodeInstruct, then falls to 19.5 at pure OpenCodeInstruct. Curated synthetic data therefore has conditional value: it contributes as a limited share of a mixture that a target-aligned source still dominates. Finally, a loss-based adaptive scheduler exposes the mismatch between residual loss reducibility and downstream transfer. Across three 60k-step free-ratio runs, Ado drives the OpenCodeInstruct share below 5% within the first 5k steps and to 1.2--1.4% by the end of training, and underperforms its matched fixed-mixture controls by 2.4--11.0 percentage points. Optimizing near-term task-loss reduction moves the mixture away from the region that transfers.

Large language models (LLMs) rely on web-scale corpora for pre-training. The noise inherent in these datasets tends to obscure meaningful patterns and ultimately degrade model performance. Data curation mitigates but cannot eliminate such noise, so pre-training corpora remain noisy in practice. We therefore study whether a lightweight pre-pre-training (PPT) stage based on synthetic data with learnable temporal structure helps resist noisy data during the pre-training (PT) stage. Across various corruption settings, our method consistently improves robustness to noise during PT, with larger relative gains at higher noise levels. For a 1B-parameter model, a synthetic PPT stage with only 65M tokens achieves the same final loss as the baseline while using up to 49% fewer natural-text PT tokens across different noise levels. Mechanistic analyses suggest PPT does not immediately suppress attention to noisy tokens. Rather, PPT-initialized models gradually downweight attention between corrupted tokens during noisy PT. This indicates that synthetic PPT inhibits noise self-modeling and shapes the subsequent optimization trajectory. Code is available at https://github.com/guox18/formal-language-prepretraining.

Choosing the wrong synthetic generator for time-series foundation model pretraining is costly: under identical training budgets, the best and worst generators produce up to a $2\times$ gap in forecasting error, yet the field has no principled way to make this choice. The problem is compounded by the fact that generator rankings are not stable across architectures: across 11 generator families evaluated on Chronos-T5-Mini and Moirai-Small trained from scratch, we find that which generators are useful depends on the model architecture. Rather than solving the generator selection problem, we sidestep it: a simple equal-weight mixture of all generators matches or beats the best individual generator for both architectures, and composing this mixture with real data yields the strongest pretraining corpora overall. Synthetic pretraining is therefore a corpus composition problem, not a generator selection problem, and composition choices should be validated per model family rather than assumed to transfer.