Authors: Maximilian Idahl, Oleh Astappiev, Benedikt Droste, Robert Scholz, Björn Plüster, Jan Philipp Harries, Robert Jäschke, Wolfgang Nejdl
Organizations: ellamind · L3S Research Center, Leibniz University Hannover · Berlin School of Library and Information Science, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
The largest open German text datasets are built from broad web crawls, which provide scale but limited coverage of specific domains. We introduce RefinedGAW, a processed and annotated resource derived from 26 semi-annual crawls of the German Academic Web, totaling 122 million documents and 314 billion tokens, with full crawl and capture history of every text. Documents labeled as academic research account for 84% of German RefinedGAW tokens across HTML and PDF. At 87.6 billion tokens, this exceeds the 64.9 billion tokens in the German subsets of FineWeb2 and FinePDFs, despite their almost five-times-larger combined size. RefinedGAW also contains substantial amounts of educational, math-heavy, and expert-oriented content with minimal commercial bias. Across HTML and PDF, 88% of German RefinedGAW documents have no near-duplicate candidate match in the three evaluated reference datasets, supporting complementary coverage. We release a queryable metadata index for fine-grained data selection and a rehydration tool for retrieving and processing source documents.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Content composition and token yields in RefinedGAW. Panel (a) reports the share and count of tokens in documents labeled as academic research across German HTML and PDF datasets. Panel (b) reports token yields for selected content labels in the complete RefinedGAW HTML and PDF collections.
Pipeline stage
HTML
PDF
Total
Captures
1,879.7M
84.9M
1,964.6M
Byte-distinct files
n/a
15.0M
n/a
Extracted texts
785.8M
13.0M
798.8M
Unique texts
111.3M
10.6M
121.9M
Share of captures
5.9%
12.5%
6.2%
Tokens
229.6B
84.9B
314.5B
Table 1: Document counts at each stage of the HTML and PDF pipelines across the 26 GAW crawls.
Figure 2: Token counts for German text datasets under varying minimum document-length thresholds. We report the total number of GPT-OSS tokens in documents containing at least that many tokens. Both axes use log-scales to show differences in the upper tails.
HTML
PDF
Reference dataset
URL
LSH
URL
LSH
Complete release (RefinedGAW)
FineWeb2-DE
2.83%
5.08%
0.0%
1.62%
FinePDFs-DE
0.0%
0.20%
9.74%
8.14%
German Commons
n/a
0.03%
n/a
0.05%
Any
5.17%
9.26%
Table 2: Percentages of RefinedGAW-HTML and -PDF documents having an exact-URL match or a near-duplicate text candidate in German reference datasets. Any is the union of the three reference datasets. URL overlap is unavailable for German Commons since it does not contain document URLs.
Figure 3: Prevalence of selected propella properties for German RefinedGAW subsets and German reference datasets. Each cell displays the percentage of documents falling in the stated category. Columns are grouped by source format, and horizontal rules separate four property groups: extraction quality, subject matter, purpose and audience, and safety and privacy. The largest value within each source-format group is marked in bold, except for marketing bias and the safety and privacy group, where lower is better. German Commons is a mixed-source dataset and belongs to neither group. Content-safety concerns comprise the labels mildly concerning , NSFW , harmful , and illegal .
(a) Outcomes by selection group
Format
Sample
Down.
Extract.
Jacc. ≥.8
Exact
HTML
Top 10%
44.8%
41.2%
21.0%
11.7%
HTML
Other 90%
34.6%
27.5%
8.1%
4.3%
PDF
Top 10%
50.7%
50.2%
35.7%
7.2%
PDF
Other 90%
39.3%
39.0%
23.6%
8.3%
Table 3: Present-day rehydration success rates by quality-ranking group and crawl recency. (a) reports the percentage of all 5,000 sampled records per group reaching each cumulative stage: source downloaded (Down.), text extracted (Extract.), Jaccard similarity of at least 0.8 over normalized five-word shingles, and exact equality with the archived text. (b) reports source-download rates for a selected early crawl shared by both formats, the latest crawl, and all crawls combined; rates weight the Top 10% and Other 90% samples by 0.1 and 0.9 to represent their population shares.
Appendix figures & tables13 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 4: Token mass above minimum document-length thresholds in the complete RefinedGAW collections. Each point sums GPT-OSS tokens over documents containing at least the indicated number of tokens ( OpenAI, 2025 ) . Both axes use logarithmic scales to show the upper tails of the distributions.
Figure 5: Exact-text recurrence across and capture multiplicity within GAW crawls. Panel (a) uses unique texts as its denominator and reports the share observed in at least the indicated number of the 26 crawls. Panel (b) uses text-crawl pairs as its denominator and reports the share with at least the indicated number of captured occurrences within that crawl; the final point pools all counts above 20. Curves are computed separately for RefinedGAW-HTML and RefinedGAW-PDF, and the vertical axes use logarithmic scales.
Figure 6: Predicted document-level language composition of RefinedGAW. GlotLID v3 assigns one label from at most the first 40,000 characters of each document; PDF pages are concatenated before inference. Panels (a) and (b) give document and GPT-OSS-token shares for the top prediction without a minimum score. Insufficient text marks documents that fail the alphabetic-text precheck, no linguistic content combines GlotLID’s corresponding labels, and all other predicted languages are aggregated. Latin is displayed separately because it is the largest prediction outside German and English by token share and is concentrated in a small number of long HTML documents. Panel (c) traces the document and token shares assigned deu_Latn as the confidence threshold increases. Token shares use document-level GPT-OSS counts ( OpenAI, 2025 ) .
Format
German criterion
German
Academic or
Moderate/high
Advanced/expert
No commercial
tokens
scientific
education
audience
bias
HTML
Top label
64.5
53.8 (83.5%)
9.2 (14.3%)
49.8 (77.3%)
60.1 (93.2%)
HTML
Score ≥0.4
51.8
41.8 (80.7%)
9.0 (17.4%)
38.2 (73.8%)
47.5 (91.9%)
HTML
Score ≥0.5
35.8
26.1 (72.8%)
8.9 (24.8%)
22.6 (63.0%)
31.6 (88.4%)
HTML
Score ≥0.7
28.2
19.0 (67.4%)
8.5 (30.0%)
15.7 (55.7%)
24.2 (85.9%)
HTML
Score ≥0.8
26.2
17.4 (66.4%)
8.1 (31.0%)
14.2 (54.2%)
22.3 (85.2%)
Appendix
Table 4: Sensitivity of selected token yields to the minimum GlotLID score among documents whose top label is deu_Latn . Values are billions of GPT-OSS tokens, with the percentage of retained German token mass assigned to each outcome in parentheses. “Top label” applies no minimum confidence score. Academic or scientific is the union of documents labeled as academic research or scientific technical content. Outcomes can overlap and must not be summed.
Format
Top language
Retained
Academic or
Moderate/high
Advanced/expert
No commercial
label
tokens
scientific
education
audience
bias
HTML
German
64.5
53.8 (83.5%)
9.2 (14.3%)
49.8 (77.3%)
60.1 (93.2%)
HTML
English
84.2
46.4 (55.1%)
36.5 (43.4%)
79.8 (94.7%)
82.5 (98.0%)
PDF
German
40.4
35.0 (86.8%)
28.2 (69.9%)
36.0 (89.1%)
38.4 (95.2%)
PDF
English
26.8
24.6 (91.8%)
23.5 (87.6%)
26.2 (97.9%)
26.0 (97.3%)
Appendix
Table 5: Content yields for the German- and English-labeled RefinedGAW subsets, defined by the top GlotLID label without a minimum score. Values are billions of GPT-OSS tokens, with the percentage of retained token mass assigned to each outcome in parentheses. Outcomes are multi-label and must not be summed.
Figure 7: Absolute token yields for selected propella outcomes under the German-language populations used in Figure 3 . The RefinedGAW bars retain documents whose top GlotLID label is deu_Latn , while the remaining bars represent the released German comparison datasets. Each bar sums the full GPT-OSS token count of documents satisfying the displayed outcome criterion ( OpenAI, 2025 ) . Bars are ordered to pair RefinedGAW-HTML-DE with FineWeb2-DE and RefinedGAW-PDF-DE with FinePDFs-DE; German Commons is a mixed-format contextual reference. The leading panel reports total corpus size. Every panel uses its own vertical scale, so bar heights are comparable within a panel but not across panels. Document-level outcomes can overlap, so yields must not be summed across panels. HPLT 3.0-DE is omitted because we did not tokenize it.
Figure 8: Leading source hosts and source-host concentration in RefinedGAW. Panels (a) and (b) report token and document counts for the eight highest-yield hosts in each format. Panel (c) accumulates hosts in decreasing order of token yield. Each exact-text-deduplicated document is counted once under the host of its canonical retained URL, so the figure describes the indexed collection rather than raw crawl captures. Subdomains are treated as separate hosts.
Figure 9: HTML and PDF token yield in each GAW crawl, partitioned by whether an exact-text-deduplicated document first appears in that crawl or was observed previously. A recurring document contributes its tokens to every crawl in which it occurs, so the bars describe crawl coverage and are not disjoint partitions of the processed collection. First observed denotes the first appearance in GAW and does not establish when the source was published online. Tokens are counted with the GPT-OSS tokenizer ( OpenAI, 2025 ) .
Figure 10: PDF page counts and extraction quality flags. Panel (a) contrasts document-weighted and GPT-OSS-token-weighted page-count distributions. Panel (b) gives the document and token shares of retained PDFs carrying each extraction flag. Quality flags are non-exclusive, and documents without a flag are omitted from panel (b).
Figure 11: Validation and length sensitivity of MinHash LSH candidates for RefinedGAW-DE query documents. Panel (a) gives the exact best five-shingle Jaccard similarity for fuzzy-only candidate samples after restricting query documents to the German subset. Boxes show the interquartile range and median, whiskers extend to 1.5 times the interquartile range, and the vertical dotted line marks 0.8 similarity. Panel (b) gives corpus-wide candidate rates within RefinedGAW-DE by query-document character length. Rows identify the RefinedGAW source format and reference corpus, cell labels give percentages, and color intensity follows a logarithmic scale.
Figure 12: Disjoint intersections of complete-release RefinedGAW exact-match and candidate sets across the three reference corpora. Panel (a) gives normalized exact-text matches, while panel (b) gives MinHash LSH candidate sets. The vertical axis gives the percentage of documents in the corresponding RefinedGAW source format, using a logarithmic scale. Each category contains documents assigned to exactly the displayed set of reference corpora, and an absent bar denotes zero documents. The LSH panel describes candidate-set membership and does not verify a fixed similarity threshold.
Figure 13: Present-day source availability in the two-group rehydration sample. Panel (a) gives download rates by source crawl year after weighting estimates from the Top 10% and Other 90% groups by their estimated within-year population shares; marker area is proportional to the estimated share of the corresponding format index represented by that year. Panel (b) gives full-index download outcomes after combining the Top 10% and Other 90% samples with weights 0.1 and 0.9. Other failure combines categories that each account for less than 2% of the corresponding format index.
pure_marketing , heavy , moderate , minimal , none
Information density
1
empty , thin , moderate , adequate , dense
Content integrity
1
severely_degraded , fragment , mostly_complete , complete
Appendix
Table 6: Components of the RefinedGAW quality score. Categories are listed in ascending component order; commercial bias is therefore reverse-coded so that less commercial text receives a larger component value.
High-quality pretraining data is a central ingredient in modern language models, but German-language resources remain far less developed than their English counterparts: they are often smaller, less carefully curated, weakly documented, and rarely validated through controlled training experiments. We introduce KletterMix, a high-quality German corpus for language model pretraining and annealing, designed as a reusable dataset artifact for the natural language processing and modeling community. KletterMix is built by translating a state-of-the-art English pretraining corpus into German while preserving document boundaries, metadata, source structure, and topical diversity. This construction yields a German corpus with the scale and diversity of a modern pretraining dataset, while enabling direct comparison to its English source. We document the dataset through a broad set of corpus-level analyses, including translation quality, document length distributions, topic coverage, source composition, and geographic metadata. Using COMETKiwi, we show that the translated documents achieve strong quality across diverse domains, suggesting that careful translation can preserve much of the semantic and stylistic richness of the original corpus. Beyond dataset construction, we evaluate KletterMix as training data. Through controlled pretraining and annealing ablations against established German corpora, we show that models trained on KletterMix achieve measurable improvements on German-language downstream evaluations. These results demonstrate that carefully curated translated data can substantially strengthen the German pretraining data ecosystem.
Maurice Kraus, Ruben Härle, Sebastian Sztwiertnia +4
AI & ML Group, TU Darmstadt · Lab1141 · Fraunhofer IAIS +3
tiny_schiller closes the small-language-model prototyping, fine-tuning, education, and research gap for German literary text, providing a single-file, drop-in counterpart to Karpathy's tiny_shakespeare. The available German literary corpora are larger and richer, but require parser engineering before a single line of training or fine-tuning code can run. tiny_schiller is a 2.07-megabyte single file of eleven public-domain Schiller dramas, sourced from DraCor's GerDraCor export (CC0) and processed by deterministic parser engineering. Character-level, GPT-2 byte-pair encoding, and cl100k_base tokenization splits, an instruction-formatted dialogue-completion split, and 89 per-character persona splits load from a single HuggingFace call. A small language model literally reaches German literary text in one line of code.
The dominant approach to building domain-specific pretraining corpora is to filter large web archives such as CommonCrawl. This works well for popular domains but breaks down for specialized ones, where relevant content is sparse and often beyond the reach of popularity-driven crawlers. We present Data Scout, which inverts this: instead of filtering an archive, it directs a targeted crawl. An LLM expands a root topic into a taxonomy and thousands of search queries; the returned URLs (seeds) are grouped by subdomain and screened with a user-supplied classifier (the probe), admitting each subdomain on the basis of a small sample. This works because relevance has a sharp boundary at the subdomain level: in mathematics, a page is 21x more likely to be relevant than one on a sibling subdomain. With the FineMath classifier as the probe, 21.9% of crawled pages are high-quality math content, 70x the 0.31% rate from filtering a comparable web sample, so the crawl wastes far less effort. But the payoff is not just efficiency: 63.2% of these pages are missing from CommonCrawl altogether, yet just as useful for training. Continued pretraining of Llama-3.2-3B on 1.9B Data Scout tokens matches FineMath corpus on GSM8k. Because the probe is the only domain-specific component, Data Scout can in principle apply to any domain with such a classifier.