CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 73Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing TechniquesMachine Learning and Data Classification

Scaling Laws and Interpretability of Learning from Repeated Data

Open access
Hernandez, Danny, Brown, Tom, Conerly, Tom, DasSarma, Nova, Drain, Dawn, El-Showk, Sheer, Elhage, Nelson, Hatfield-Dodds, Zac +10 more·2022·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2205.10487arXiv 2205.10487
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Recent large language models have been trained on vast datasets, but also often on repeated data, either intentionally for the purpose of upweighting higher quality data, or unintentionally because data deduplication is not perfect and the model is exposed to repeated data at the sentence, paragraph, or document level. Some works have reported substantial negative performance effects of this repeated data. In this paper we attempt to study repeated data systematically and to understand its effects mechanistically. To do this, we train a family of models where most of the data is unique but a small fraction of it is repeated many times. We find a strong double descent phenomenon, in which repeated data can lead test loss to increase midway through training. A predictable range of repetition frequency leads to surprisingly severe degradation in performance. For instance, performance of an 800M parameter model can be degraded to that of a 2x smaller model (400M params) by repeating 0.1% of the data 100 times, despite the other 90% of the training tokens remaining unique. We suspect there is a range in the middle where the data can be memorized and doing so consumes a large fraction of the model's capacity, and this may be where the peak of degradation occurs. Finally, we connect these observations to recent mechanistic interpretability work - attempting to reverse engineer the detailed computations performed by the model - by showing that data repetition disproportionately damages copying and internal structures associated with generalization, such as induction heads, providing a possible mechanism for the shift from generalization to memorization. Taken together, these results provide a hypothesis for why repeating a relatively small fraction of data in large language models could lead to disproportionately large harms to performance.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2205.10487

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • LLMs are particularly vulnerable to performance degradation from low-quality data containing spam, noise, and duplicates.

    “LLMs are particularly vulnerable to performance degradation from low-quality data containing spam, noise, and duplicates [61,62].”

    From A Survey of Large Language Models (2026) · cites this paper as [62]

    The Conclusion (p. 14) reports that repeated data can cause severe degradation in language-model performance, supporting the claim about duplicates. The Limitations (p. 13) say the repeated data was a random subset of the original dataset; the paper does not establish the claimed effects of spam or noise, or of low-quality data generally. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Some work explicitly advocates against reusing data.

    “and some work explicitly advocates against reusing data (Hernandez et al., 2022).”

    From Scaling Data-Constrained Language Models (2023) · cites this paper as Hernandez et al., 2022

    The discussion on p. 2 says large language models need to be careful about overfitting repeated high-quality data, and the Conclusion (p. 14) reports that repetition at certain frequencies can severely degrade performance. That supports caution about reusing data, but the paper does not explicitly advocate against data reuse in general. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Hernandez et al. [2022] showed that repeated data can induce disproportionate degradation once a fraction of the corpus is duplicated.

    “Hernandez et al. [2022] reached a complementary conclusion from the angle of memorization and interpretability, showing that repeated data can induce disproportionate degradation once a fraction of the corpus is duplicated.”

    From Training Compute-Optimal Transformer Models: A Review of Scaling Laws, Allocation, and Practice (2026) · cites this paper as Hernandez et al., 2022

  • Prior work has reported double descent phenomena when repeating data, where loss initially increases and then decreases again as the model is trained for more epochs.

    “Prior work has reported double descent phenomena when repeating data, where the loss initially increases and then decreases again as the model is trained for more epochs (Nakkiran et al., 2021a;Hernandez et al., 2022).”

    From Scaling Data-Constrained Language Models (2023) · cites this paper as Hernandez et al., 2022

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Hernandez, D., Brown, T., Conerly, T., DasSarma, N., Drain, D., El-Showk, S., Elhage, N., Hatfield-Dodds, Z., Henighan, T., Hume, T., Johnston, S., Mann, B., Olah, C., Olsson, C., Amodei, D., Joseph, N., Kaplan, J., & McCandlish, S.
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2022
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2205.10487
arXiv
2205.10487
OpenAlex
W4281481109
Cited by
24
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 13
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Data Classification
Keywords
data deduplication, double descent, memorization, generalization, mechanistic interpretability, induction heads, large language models, model capacity, training data quality

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review