PreprintCited by 4Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing TechniquesWeb Data Mining and Analysis

Organize the Web: Constructing Domains Enhances Pre-Training Data Curation

Open access
Wettig, Alexander, Lo, Kyle, Min, Sewon, Hajishirzi, Hannaneh, Chen, Danqi, Soldaini, Luca·2025·arXiv

Abstract

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2502.10341

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.

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?

  • 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 measured
  • Prior 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

  1. [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.
  2. [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.
  3. [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
  4. [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 .
  5. [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 .
  6. [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

Authors
Wettig, A., Lo, K., Min, S., Hajishirzi, H., Chen, D., & Soldaini, L.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4407633227
Cited by
0
References
0
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
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