aiqbench analysis
This research identifies "repetition mismatch" as the primary reason small-scale pre-training data mixture experiments fail to scale, showing that changing repetition rates distort optimal data ratios. By implementing a subsampling procedure that matches target repetition rates, researchers can recover near-optimal mixtures using significantly fewer tokens and training horizons than standard extrapolation methods. The findings establish data repetition as a critical variable in mixture optimization rather than an incidental side effect.
Repetition Mismatch: Why Data Mixture Experiments Don't Scale and How to Fix Them
arXiv:2606.07597v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: 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.
Abstract: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.
Machine Learning (cs.LG); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2606.07597 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2606.07597v2 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2606.07597 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 346 words
Related coverage
Repetition Mismatch: Why Data Mixture Experiments Don't Scale and How to Fix Them
arXiv · Jun 9, 2026
[AINews] not much happened today
Latent Space · Sep 10, 2026
Reflection’s Beam model hits 501 billion parameters
Quantum Zeitgeist · Oct 5, 2026
Benchmarking Kimi-K3 Across vLLM, SGLang, and ATOM on MI350X
AMD · Sep 22, 2026