Organize the Web: Constructing Domains Enhances Pre-Training Data Curation
Open accessAbstract
Modern language models are trained on large, unstructured datasets consisting of trillions of tokens and obtained by crawling the web. The unstructured nature makes it difficult to reason about their contents and develop systematic approaches to data curation. In this paper, we unpack monolithic web corpora by developing taxonomies of their contents and organizing them into domains. We introduce WebOrganizer, a framework for organizing web pages in terms of both their topic and format. Using these two complementary notions of domains, we automatically annotate pre-training data by distilling annotations from a large language model into efficient classifiers. This allows us to study how data from different domains should be mixed to improve models on downstream tasks, and we show that we can combine insights about effective topics and formats to further boost performance. We demonstrate that our domain mixing also improves existing methods that select data based on quality. Furthermore, we study and compare how quality-based methods will implicitly change the domain mixture. Overall, our work demonstrates that constructing and mixing domains provides a valuable complement to quality-based data curation methods, opening new avenues for effective and insightful pre-training data curation.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
The topic taxonomy proposed by WebOrganizer was adopted, selecting 22 distinct topic domains.
“To categorize the deep research queries, we adopt the topic taxonomy proposed by WebOrganizer [29], selecting 22 distinct topic domains for this classification.”
From DeepResearch Bench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Deep Research Agents (2025) · cites this paper as [29]
Section 2.1 (p. 3) confirms that WebOrganizer proposes a topic taxonomy, but says it contains 24 categories, not 22. The citing authors may have selected 22 of those categories for their own classification; the source does not document that selection. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredPrior work has shown that scaling procedures only work for some benchmarks and not others.
“While there is a large and ever-growing number of benchmarks, prior work has shown these scaling procedures only works for some benchmarks and not others [66, 56, 15, 50].”
From Signal and Noise: A Framework for Reducing Uncertainty in Language Model Evaluation (2025) · cites this paper as [66]
The Results (p. 6) report that combining topic and format mixtures improved performance on 8 of 9 tasks, showing that outcomes differ by benchmark. Experimental Details (p. 27) also note that some benchmark tasks were near random performance at the 1b-1x scale. Neither passage establishes the broader claim that scaling procedures work for some benchmarks but not others. (LLM, conf=0.76)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- [2]2. Rowan Zellers, Ari Holtzman, Yonatan Bisk, Ali Farhadi, and Yejin Choi. HellaSwag: Can a machine really finish your sentence? In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics , pp. 4791-4800, 2019.
- [3]3. Chi Zhang, Huaping Zhong, Kuan Zhang, Chengliang Chai, Rui Wang, Xinlin Zhuang, Tianyi Bai, Jiantao Qiu, Lei Cao, Ju Fan, Ye Yuan, Guoren Wang, and Conghui He. Harnessing diversity for important data selection in pretraining large language models. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , 2025. URL https://openreview.net/ forum?id=bMC1t7eLRc . Spotlight.
- [4]4. Yuwei Zhang, Zihan Wang, and Jingbo Shang. ClusterLLM: Large language models as a guide for text clustering. In Houda Bouamor, Juan Pino, and Kalika Bali (eds.), Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pp. 13903-13920, Singapore, December 2023. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2023. emnlp-main.858. URL https://aclanthology. org/2023.emnlp-main.858/ . · DOI
- [5]5. Lianmin Zheng, Liangsheng Yin, Zhiqiang Xie, Chuyue Sun, Jeff Huang, Cody Hao Yu, Shiyi Cao, Christos Kozyrakis, Ion Stoica, Joseph E. Gonzalez, Clark Barrett, and Ying Sheng. SGLang: Efficient execution of structured language model programs. In The Thirty-eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems , 2024. URL https:// openreview.net/forum?id=VqkAKQibpq .
- [6]6. Ruiqi Zhong, Charlie Snell, Dan Klein, and Jacob Steinhardt. Describing differences between text distributions with natural language. In Kamalika Chaudhuri, Stefanie Jegelka, Le Song, Csaba Szepesvari, Gang Niu, and Sivan Sabato (eds.), Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Machine Learning , volume 162 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research , pp. 27099-27116. PMLR, 1723 Jul 2022. URL https://proceedings.mlr. press/v162/zhong22a.html .
- [7]7. Yukun Zhu, Ryan Kiros, Rich Zemel, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, Raquel Urtasun, Antonio Torralba, and Sanja Fidler. Aligning books and movies: Towards story-like visual explanations by watching movies and reading books. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision , pp. 19-27, 2015. URL https://arxiv.org/pdf/1506.06724.pdf . · arXiv
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Bai, S., Cai, Y., Chen, R., Chen, K., Chen, X., Cheng, Z., Deng, L., Ding, W., Gao, C., Ge, C., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.21631 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
“All documents undergo domain classification (Wettig et al., 2025) using a lightweight Qwen-based scorer fine-tuned for fine-grained domain identification.”
DeepResearch Bench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Deep Research Agents
Du, M., Xu, B., Zhu, C., Wang, X., & Mao, Z. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.11763 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
“To categorize the deep research queries, we adopt the topic taxonomy proposed by WebOrganizer [29], selecting 22 distinct topic domains for this classification.”
OpenThoughts: Data Recipes for Reasoning Models
Guha, E., Marten, R., Keh, S., Raoof, N., Smyrnis, G., Bansal, H., Nezhurina, M., Mercat, J., Vu, T., Sprague, Z., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.04178 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Signal and Noise: A Framework for Reducing Uncertainty in Language Model Evaluation
Heineman, D., Hofmann, V., Magnusson, I., Gu, Y., Smith, N. A., Hajishirzi, H., Lo, K., & Dodge, J. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.13144
Self-citation
- Authors
- Wettig, A., Lo, K., Min, S., Hajishirzi, H., Chen, D., & Soldaini, L.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2502.10341
- OpenAlex
- W4407633227
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Web Data Mining and Analysis
- Keywords
- web corpus, topic classification, data mixing, large language models
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