Data Repetition in Language Model Training

As pretraining increasingly repeats data, every run faces three questions: how many epochs to take, how that number should change with model size, and whether anything besides the epoch count matters. We answer them by pricing a repeated token against two references: one epoch on the same data, which gives its value, and fresh data at equal compute, which gives its cost. Against fresh data, the cost of repetition follows a single variable, the number of extra epochs divided by the unique tokens per parameter. Against the same data, a second epoch is worth nearly as much as a fresh one, and repeated tokens fall to half the value of fresh ones after a critical epoch count that grows with the training budget per parameter but hardly with model size. With unique data fixed, the predicted compute-optimal run grows model size and epochs together until loss stops improving, near the critical epoch count. The same variable accounts for the direction of size trends that appear to conflict: larger models tolerate fewer epochs when the corpus is fixed, from about 15 at 127M to 4 at 2B parameters, but not when unique data grow with the model. Counts alone do not determine loss: at identical counts, replaying shards consecutively raises loss by up to 0.46~bits per byte, concentrating repeats on fewer samples also raises it, lower-entropy sources degrade faster with repetition, and re-tokenizing repeats helps only under heavy repetition. These results offer an empirical guide to pretraining when unique data, rather than compute, are the binding constraint.

The repetition count that works best for a small language model may not remain best at a larger scale. We study this effect in pretraining with a finite target corpus mixed with generic data at a fixed target fraction. On Wikipedia-derived data and Proof-Pile-2, the ranking of measured repetition counts changes with model size, and a 520M Proof-Pile-2 experiment confirms that reducing repetition from sixteen to eight improves loss while using fewer training tokens. We use loss curves from several smaller models to retain a short list of promising repetition counts for evaluation at a larger scale. On PubMed and Caselaw, candidate sets fixed before target-model training retain the lowest-loss measured count on the original evaluation grids at both 200M and 520M. This supports candidate retention as a practical alternative to exact point prediction. We also relate the pruning regression to an empirical scaling model with two opposing repetition-dependent loss terms. A first-order expansion in log model size yields the linear form used by the selection rule, providing a scaling-based interpretation of the candidate-selection procedure.

Iterative fine-tuning on synthetic data causes \emph{model collapse}: output diversity narrows as rare patterns are progressively lost, a signature most visible as phrase-level repetition. Existing mitigations either require model log-probabilities, an external oracle, or continued access to real human data. Here we develop a new approach grounded in mathematical information theory: the non-parametric Kontoyiannis entropy rate estimator $h_k$, computed entirely from raw text via match-length statistics, with no model of any kind. We show that this is in fact a \emph{superior} training-data filter on text-diversity metrics in a fully-synthetic, single-lineage fine-tuning setting. In a six-generation QLoRA collapse experiment on Llama-3.1-8B, logprob-based filtering (the most established model-access-requiring baseline) provides no significant text-diversity benefit on any metric ($p > 0.23$), whereas $h_k$-filtering yields $+42\%$ unique trigrams, $+30\%$ vocabulary, and $-19\%$ repetition (all $p < 0.001$). We validate $h_k$ as a cross-domain entropy proxy ($β= 0.924$, $R^2 = 0.746$) and collapse detector ($ρ= +0.454$, $p < 0.0001$) across 4domains, 2temperatures, 2~generator--scorer model pairs, and 1{,}520 generated documents. Our results demonstrate that information theoretic approaches to collapse mitigation are efficient, and suggest new approaches for maintaining multi-agent diversity.

This paper studies forking, a generalization failure discovered in NanoGPT autoresearch. Under data replay, models with an over-encoding n-gram memory branch show a sharp separation of training and validation loss at epoch boundaries, resembling the shape of forks. We study this phenomenon in a controlled vanilla NanoGPT setting and reproduce it in a DeepSeek-style model with Engram. Mechanistically, repeated updates sharpen the continuations observed in training while suppressing the probability of unseen continuations, whose loss grows with each pass. The n-gram module creates weakly interacting context-specific subspaces, amplifying this effect. Low-frequency contexts contribute most of the gap, whereas larger training budgets and heavily crowded tables suppress it. We also observe forking in short-budget, heavily repeated SFT and RL-like regimes. The contributions of this paper are twofold: (1) Forking reveals yet another curious phenomenon in deep learning, in addition to grokking and double descent. (2) Forking is an unexpected and unpleasant by-product of tricks proposed by autoresearch agents. While these agents produce an enormous number of results that seem useful, we should always be careful with their results.

Memorization has been proposed as a mechanism to explain how language models fit the tail of their training distributions, but its training dynamics are not understood well. In this work, we take a fine-grained look at memorization by decomposing the loss trajectory of memorized sequences over training and model parameters. Across the Pythia family, we study memorization of duplicated training sequences (recitation) and rare ones (recollection). We find that memorization in both cases is characterized by sequence-level gradient alignment, though recitation suffers from misalignment with other training influences which causes forgetting, explaining the necessity for higher duplication of these examples. We further show that the lower model layers are the most involved in memorization and forgetting. Predicting memorization, our decomposition improves over a cross-entropy baseline, especially in larger models and early in training. Intervening on a small set of highly influential parameters we are able to ablate memorization in the final model. Together, these findings advance our understanding of how memorization develops during training and offer insights for predicting and intervening on it.

Recipes such as s1 and LIMO teach a model to reason with little data by showing it the same thousand or fewer worked solutions many times over. Judged when that training ends, the repetition looks harmless. But reasoning models are often trained again, and we find that repetition leaves their reasoning fragile to that next stage, even when the stage has nothing to do with reasoning. We fine-tuned Qwen3.5-9B-Base on its own correct solutions to competition math problems, either drilling a few hundred of them about eight times each or showing many more once; with the same amount of training, both solve about 95% of held-out problems. A single pass of ordinary instruction tuning leaves the once-trained model where it was, while the drilled one falls to 86.0%, and harsher later stages take it to 59.3% or below. A third model that visited the drilled problems just as often, with a new solution at every visit, was unharmed, so the damage comes from seeing the same texts again rather than from having few problems. The break recurs with a stronger model's traces, in further training runs and on other models and tasks. It is also cheap to undo: the reasoning is suppressed rather than erased, and five updates of reasoning training bring almost all of it back, as does brief training on the reasoning format with almost no mathematics. Fresh solutions prevented the damage, and so did replaying 6.25% of the original solutions in a gentler later stage, so our claim concerns later training without such replay. Sharpening alone does not explain the break, since a model sharpened three-quarters as much without repetition was unharmed. On a skill the base model could not perform within a token budget, repetition mainly cost learning.

Learning from limited text requires models to use context, generalize to new inputs, and retain useful capabilities. Qiushi Engine conducted a long-horizon, end-to-end autonomous research program on BabyLM 2026 Strict-Small, within 10 million corpus words and 100 million cumulative word presentations. Three stages connected frontier advancement, principle discovery, and principle-guided model improvement. Stage I combined compact restatements, budget reinvestment, and residual incremental learning to build a frontier model. Stage II found that exact repetition and aligned restatement produce different patterns of context use, depending on target relations and prediction windows. In controlled tasks, recovering familiar performance did not ensure that unseen inputs could still use learned computations. These findings support a testable data-efficient learning principle: organize experience around the contextual dependencies needed for prediction; separately design visible information, supervision, and preservation; test learning, generalization, and retention. Stage III retained source text, masked more local clues, supervised selected targets, and preserved predictions on ordinarily masked inputs. Two continuation seeds from the same parent outperformed ordinary continuation on the complete nine-metric aggregate. Overall rose from 42.02 to 42.25 across two generations; the second achieved the highest Overall in the public Strict-Small snapshot of 8 September 2026. Further studies addressed compression, relational anchors, shared representations, and measurement. Models are available on Hugging Face; code and research records accompany the GitHub repository. Together, these stages illustrate Research RSI: recursive self-improvement of the research process. Scientific understanding and method innovations change subsequent questions and designs; new experiments test and refine them.

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.

How fast does a language model degrade when trained on its own outputs? Theory traces it to gradually accumulating errors, while experiments report repeated phrases within ten generations. Under a fixed sampling seed in vLLM, the fast loss of lexical diversity comes from the sampler. When vLLM serves a batch from one seeded sampling configuration, every request receives the same random draws, and a fixed seed replays them every generation. Fine-tuning raises the tokens that won, and the replayed draws let them win by more. Sharing across requests and replay across generations matter only together. Remove either one, by changing the shared seed every generation or by giving each request its own seed that repeats every generation, and the unique-4-gram fraction of two StableLM checkpoints stays near its starting value of about 0.98 through generation 3. Keep both, and the replayed shared seed takes seven checkpoints from five families to between 0.045 and 0.38 by then. Three generations of replay write the favoured phrases into the weights: decoded with one seed per request, the generation-3 weights of the replayed StableLM-2-1.6B chain recover most of their diversity, yet the phrase that filled every sample under the shared seed still opens 46% of them. Without replay, five checkpoints drift slowly, consistent with the gradual accumulation that theory describes, and three turn incoherent though their diversity scores stay high. One peer-reviewed model-collapse pipeline that fine-tunes Gemma-2-27B samples identical prompts under one seeded configuration, and three quarters of the rows it released for one iteration repeat nearly as often as one such batch copies them. A seed per request restores the fresh sample that stability analyses assume.

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, within noise, 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.

Gaps remain in our understanding of how large language models (LLMs) acquire knowledge during pre-training. We posit that auxiliary views, reformulations of knowledge, are causally helpful for learning. We design controlled experiments to isolate this. First, we confirm that repetition is necessary for acquisition and clarify that paraphrasing helps only at smaller batch sizes. Second, holding the token budget fixed, allocating tokens from document repetition to auxiliary views improves learning, counterintuitively, even for factual recall. Third, the effectiveness of auxiliary views is not contingent on the strength of the teacher model that generates them. Fourth, we identify forms of knowledge, contextual and foundational, that aid learning in the presence of prior knowledge gaps. Finally, we examine how these effects manifest mechanistically via layer-wise biases and compression. Together, our findings suggest that auxiliary representations of knowledge, which arise naturally in large pre-training corpora, are a key factor in the success of pre-training and offer a plausible explanation for why data diversity matters.

Post-training can substantially alter language-model behavior, yet aggregate behavior rates do not reveal whether training removes an existing mechanism, creates a new one, or changes how an inherited mechanism is used. We study this question through two mechanistically distinct failures, repetition as a decoding-attractor pathology and sycophancy as a preference-related alignment failure. We introduce behavioral manifold analysis, which isolates behavior-specific geometry by selecting sparse behavior-associated coordinates and lifting them into low-dimensional local charts. We construct these charts in two complementary spaces. ACT captures runtime activation states, while NOC quantifies how strongly the model routes functional information flow through the shared behavior-associated subspace. Across multiple model families, the resulting charts are highly compressed and partially alignable across architectures. Contribution-space charts expose a more architecture-robust shared core, whereas activation-space charts retain stronger family-specific structure. Tracking these charts through controlled post-training reveals a consistent asymmetry. Supervised fine-tuning substantially alters the inherited behavioral geometry, whereas reward optimization changes behavior while largely preserving the underlying chart. This geometric perspective provides a unified framework for understanding the mechanistic distinction between the two objectives. SFT tends to rewrite behavioral geometry, whereas reward optimization primarily reweights it. Code is available at https://github.com/ronglingze/Manifold-Analysis

Increasing the temperature of an ordinary many-state system increases access to a wider range of states and hence increases its entropy. We find the opposite in ChatGPT-like AIs, even though raising the decoder temperature likewise increases access to a wider range of states (next-token choices). Across 12,000 continuations from 11 AIs, autoregressive feedback drives the long-time output population through an entropy maximum and into population inversion. The transition features frozen states, cycles, intermittency and noise-induced ordering. We present evidence of a hidden coordinate that acts as the state variable of an effective nonlinear map. Its trajectory average strongly predicts output repetition in separate test trajectories. ChatGPT-like AIs therefore behave not as `stochastic parrots', but as a new class of controllable nonlinear physical systems whose internal dynamics can be measured and perturbed.

Large language models that generate step-by-step reasoning traces have achieved strong performance on complex tasks, and extending them to long-context settings has emerged as an important frontier. However, we identify a critical failure mode in this regime: \emph{repetitive copying}, where models extensively copy text from the input into their reasoning traces rather than productively solving the problem. We show that this behavior is pervasive across frontier long-context LLMs and intensifies with context length. By separating each prompt into task-relevant key evidence and irrelevant distractor context, we further show that the root cause is insufficient grounding: models copy from the prompt indiscriminately, and those that fail to focus on key evidence are far more likely to answer incorrectly. Motivated by this diagnosis, we propose GEAR (Grounding Evidence-Aware Reward), a reward shaping method that augments the accuracy signal with a grounding reward for overlap with key evidence and a distractor penalty for overlap with irrelevant context. To enable GEAR on natural-language data, we develop an automated pipeline that constructs evidence-annotated training data from arbitrary documents. We validate GEAR across multiple model scales and benchmarks, showing consistent improvements of up to +4.6 average points over standard RL with accuracy-based rewards, with larger gains at longer contexts, while also reducing repetitive copying and thinking length. Our findings suggest that, even as long-context evaluation shifts from simple retrieval toward complex reasoning, accurate grounding in relevant evidence remains an indispensable capability with substantial room for improvement.

Structured pruning is a hardware-friendly way to compress LLMs, but it is mostly validated on multiple-choice recognition tasks, while the same compressed checkpoints can collapse on the free-form generation that deployment actually requires. Two observations trace this gap. First, greedy \textsc{pass}@$1$ nearly vanishes after compression, yet \textsc{pass}@$k$ recovers substantially under repeated sampling: useful generations are demoted, not erased. Second, the recoverable regime fails mainly through suffix repetition. Recovery should therefore train on the compressed model's own on-policy states with dense token-level supervision, which On-Policy Distillation (OPD) provides by reusing the pre-compression model as a frozen teacher. However, long on-policy rollouts spend early recovery budget on low-information repetitive suffixes, delaying loss descent. To mitigate this waste, we propose \textbf{\shortopd}, a short-to-long OPD schedule that detects teacher-confirmed repetitive suffixes, treats the surviving prefix as each rollout's effective length, and allocates future rollout budgets to the effective lengths the policy can currently use. Across math, code, and open-ended generation, \shortopd\ raises the compressed model's score to about $9\times$ its unrecovered value and $1.6$--$4.4\times$ standard recovery recipes (SFT w/o KD, KD, and SeqKD), and it matches a fixed $8192$-token rollout horizon within two points using a quarter of the training time ($8.5$ vs.\ $35.9$ hours) and $71\%$ fewer rollout tokens. We hope this recipe helps move structured pruning beyond marginal gains on perplexity and multiple-choice benchmarks, a step closer to deployment-ready generation quality.

The training paradigm of large language models has shifted from traditional one-pass training to multi-epoch training, as reasonable reuse of limited high-quality data can improve both model performance and sample efficiency. Meanwhile, excessive repetition introduces the risk of overfitting and diminishing returns. Determining when and how to reuse data effectively thus emerges as a natural but under-explored question. Through a novel observation of model's "Memorization Window" signals derived from loss retention dynamics and downstream evaluation scores, we propose "Memorization-guided Data Reuse", a training paradigm that adaptively determines when and how data should be reused, enabling principled decisions on the number of training epochs and the scheduling of data replays. Our preliminary experiments reveal a consistent memorization-driven regime: performance continues to improve with repetition far beyond current practice (e.g., the commonly cited four-epoch limit). While a full scheduler remains future work, these insights provide a foundation for memorization-aware training schedules, helping to determine reuse budgets and move toward training LLMs smarter rather than longer with limited high-quality data.

Clinical machine learning increasingly relies on training corpora generated by large language models (LLMs) rather than annotated by clinicians, and such corpora are described and reused largely on the basis of their reported scale. We test whether volume reflects information content. Analysing the complete output of a multi-agent clinical extraction pipeline applied to 167,034 patient narratives, 2.51 billion generated tokens across the ten text-bearing channels of an eleven-channel pipeline, we introduce Provenance-based Redundancy Decomposition, a token-level classification of the entire output by source. Only 10.9% of the output is trainable-unique content while 79.4% is redundant; raw token count overstates information content by roughly ninefold. The redundancy arises through two distinct mechanisms, verbatim copying of source context into per-item fields, and duplication of generated text across records, of which only the former is losslessly removable. An independent, model-free analysis based on lossless compression confirms the redundancy, recovering the two mechanisms without reference to the provenance labels. One pipeline channel carries almost no redundancy, showing that the level of redundancy depends on how each channel is structured rather than being a fixed property of LLM extraction. Because uncorrected redundancy up-weights the longer, more complex presentations that generate the most items, it skews the token-level training distribution of the corpus, a property we measure directly. In a controlled downstream test, de-duplicating the corpus before adaptation improved a clinical encoder on external disease-recognition benchmarks at equal token budget, robustly across adaptation depths and replicated on a second benchmark, confirming that the redundancy carries a measurable cost beyond storage. The classification tool is released openly.

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.

Yes. Can it cure doom loops? Probably not. The Gemma 4 instruction-tuned models share a reproducible failure: on long factual enumeration prompts, such as listing every episode of a TV series, the 88 IAU constellations, or the 151 original Pokemon, they collapse into repetition, either a tight verbatim loop or a list whose entries decay onto a single answer. These loops occur at rates as high as 95% and survive prompt rewording, inference-engine changes, and most sampling adjustments. In this paper we explore whether this behavior is localized enough to remove by weight edits. To localize the cause, we use per-layer ablation and per-neuron attribution, then confirm the strongest candidates with full-generation sweeps. The loops trace to a small set of MLP neurons (or, in the 26B-A4B Mixture-of-Experts model, a few routed experts) which we suppress with static weight edits. These "surgeries" can be as small as a single sign-inverted neuron (in the E2B model). The size of the effective edits grows with model scale, but in all cases, the loop patterns can be addressed at normal generation budgets while preserving general-purpose benchmark scores. However, the edits do not solve everything: we also study longer thinking budgets, where the two larger models most visibly enter doom looping, i.e. a non-convergent regime in which the model self-corrects in circles over a fact it cannot recall, exhausting the budget without committing to a final answer. We show this residual failure is reduced but not eliminated by the same edits, and argue it is fundamentally a knowledge-precision problem rather than a removable circuit; weight surgery can delete a loop, but it cannot supply a missing fact. Our results are both a feasibility demonstration, that is, evidence that a concrete generation pathology can be localized to a few parameters and edited out, and a delineation of where that approach stops.

Classical scaling laws for language model pretraining balance model size against training dataset size under a fixed compute budget, assuming abundant data and a single pass over the corpus. As training compute grows faster than the supply of natural language data, pretraining is likely to enter a data-constrained, compute-rich regime where models train for multiple epochs over a finite dataset. We study data-constrained pretraining along two axes, regularization and scaling. For regularization, we study masked-input regularization (MIR), an auxiliary next-token prediction loss on randomly masked inputs. MIR tests whether the random masking central to diffusion language models can benefit autoregressive pretraining without architectural changes or inference overhead. Across 72M to 1.4B parameter models, we find that MIR added on top of strong weight decay improves validation loss over autoregressive strong-weight-decay-only models, with downstream gains at 1.4B. For scaling, we propose SoftQ, a scaling law that couples model size and data size to capture their interaction under repeated data. Classical alternatives such as the Chinchilla law use an additive form that decouples these terms, making them misspecified in the data-constrained regime. We find that SoftQ fits data-constrained experiments substantially better than these alternatives, and estimates MIR's gains as equivalent to roughly 1.3 times as much unique training data. We release our code at https://github.com/yixinw-lab/dc_pretrain.

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.

Pre-training data mixtures are commonly tuned by running small-scale experiments and extrapolating to the target training budget. When high-quality data is scarce and must be repeated, this extrapolation frequently fails, but the source of the failure has not been isolated. We show that a primary culprit is a repetition mismatch: because high-quality datasets are small, their repetition rate changes as the training budget grows, shifting the optimal mixture in ways that small-scale proxy experiments do not anticipate. A subsampling procedure that matches the target repetition rate controls for this effect. In a two-source setting combining limited high-quality data with web crawl, a single repetition-controlled experiment using only 1/16 of the target tokens recovers a mixture within 0.10 of the optimum on Wiki-Text for a 1.17B parameter model, compared to an error of 0.85 without repetition control. Achieving comparable accuracy without repetition control requires multiple training horizons, consuming 19%, 44%, and 94% of the target token budget when using the results from two, three, and four horizons respectively. With three data sources, the larger mixture space requires more than a single experiment to constrain, but the approach remains effective: at the 757M scale, just two repetition-controlled horizons recover the optimal mixture, outperforming baselines that instead require the full two-source experiments to construct. Our results reveal that repetition dynamics, not scale alone, shape whether small-scale mixture experiments generalize. More broadly, they suggest that data repetition deserves treatment as a first-class variable in mixture optimization, rather than an inconvenient side effect of limited data.

As language models scale, the amount of data they require grows -- yet many target data sources, such as low-resource languages or specialized domains, are inherently limited in size. A common strategy is to mix this scarce but valuable target data with abundant generic data, which presents a fundamental trade-off: too little target data in the mixture underexposes the model to the target domain, while too much target data repeats the same examples excessively, yielding diminishing returns and eventual overfitting. We study this trade-off across more than 2,000 language-model training runs spanning multiple model and target dataset sizes, as well as several data types, including multilingual, domain-specific, and quality-filtered mixtures. Across all settings, we find that repetition is a central driver of target-domain performance, and that mixture training tolerates much higher repetition than single-source training: scarce target corpora can be reused 15-20 times, with the optimal number of repetitions depending on the target data size, compute budget, and model scale. Next, we introduce a repetition-aware mixture scaling law that accounts for the decreasing value of repeated target tokens and the regularizing role of generic data. Optimizing the scaling law provides a principled way to compute effective mixture configurations, yielding practical mixture recommendations for pretraining under data constraints.

Upweighting high-quality data in LLM pretraining often improves performance, but in datalimited regimes, especially under overtraining, stronger upweighting increases repetition and can degrade performance. However, standard scaling laws do not reliably extrapolate across mixture recipes or under repetitions, making the selection for optimal data recipes at scaling underdetermined. To solve this, we introduce InfoLaw (Information Scaling Laws), a data-aware scaling framework that predicts loss from consumed tokens, model size, data mixture weights, and repetition. The key idea is to model pretraining as information accumulation, where quality controls information density and repetition induces scaledependent diminishing returns. We first collect the model performance after training on datasets that vary in scale, quality distribution, and repetition level. Then we build up the modeling for information so that information accurately predicts those model performance. InfoLaw predicts performance on unseen data recipes and larger scale runs (up to 7B, 425B tokens) with 0.15% mean and 0.96% max absolute error in loss, and it extrapolates reliably across overtraining levels, enabling efficient data-recipe selection under varying compute budgets.

Recent research has shown that filtering massive English web corpora into high-quality subsets significantly improves training efficiency. However, for high-resource non-English languages like German, French, or Japanese, aggressive filtering creates a strategic dilemma: should practitioners prioritize diversity by training once on large amounts of lightly filtered web data, or prioritize quality by strictly filtering for a high-quality core and repeating it over multiple epochs? We investigate this trade-off for German by constructing hierarchical quality filters applied to 500M web documents, comparing multi-epoch training on the filtered subsets against single-pass training on a diverse corpus. Our experiments across multiple model scales and token budgets show that repeating high-quality data consistently outperforms single-pass training on larger, less filtered sets. Notably, the performance gap persists even after 7 epochs. Our findings suggest that for non-English LLMs, semantic concentration through quality filtering offers a more viable path to efficient language modeling than simply maximizing unique data volume. We release our German language models (called Boldt), as well as our cleaned evaluation benchmarks to the research community. Our experiments indicate that they achieve state-of-the-art results despite training on 10-360x fewer tokens than comparable models.