Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Replaying pre-training data improves fine-tuning

Suhas Kotha, Percy Liang · Mar 5, 2026 · Citations: 0

Data freshness

Extraction: Fresh

Check recency before relying on this page for active eval decisions. Use stale pages as context and verify against current hub results.

Metadata refreshed

Mar 5, 2026, 9:00 AM

Fresh

Extraction refreshed

Mar 7, 2026, 5:51 AM

Fresh

Extraction source

Persisted extraction

Confidence 0.45

Abstract

To obtain a language model for a target domain (e.g. math), the current paradigm is to pre-train on a vast amount of generic web text and then fine-tune on the relatively limited amount of target data. Typically, generic data is only mixed in during fine-tuning to prevent catastrophic forgetting of the generic domain. We surprisingly find that replaying the generic data during fine-tuning can actually improve performance on the (less related) target task. Concretely, in a controlled pre-training environment with 4M target tokens, 4B total tokens, and 150M parameter models, generic replay increases target data efficiency by up to $1.87\times$ for fine-tuning and $2.06\times$ for mid-training. We further analyze data schedules that introduce target data during pre-training and find that replay helps more when there is less target data present in pre-training. We demonstrate the success of replay in practice for fine-tuning 8B parameter models, improving agentic web navigation success by $4.5\%$ and Basque question-answering accuracy by $2\%$.

Low-signal caution for protocol decisions

Use this page for context, then validate protocol choices against stronger HFEPX references before implementation decisions.

  • Extraction confidence is 0.45 (below strong-reference threshold).

HFEPX Relevance Assessment

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

Extraction confidence is 0.45 (below strong-reference threshold).

Trust level

Low

Eval-Fit Score

25/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

HFEPX Fit

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence: Low

Field Provenance & Confidence

Each key protocol field shows extraction state, confidence band, and data source so you can decide whether to trust it directly or validate from full text.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

Confidence: Low Source: Persisted extraction missing

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

Evidence snippet: To obtain a language model for a target domain (e.g.

Evaluation Modes

partial

Automatic Metrics

Confidence: Low Source: Persisted extraction evidenced

Includes extracted eval setup.

Evidence snippet: To obtain a language model for a target domain (e.g.

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

Confidence: Low Source: Persisted extraction missing

No explicit QC controls found.

Evidence snippet: To obtain a language model for a target domain (e.g.

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

Confidence: Low Source: Persisted extraction missing

No benchmark anchors detected.

Evidence snippet: To obtain a language model for a target domain (e.g.

Reported Metrics

partial

Accuracy

Confidence: Low Source: Persisted extraction evidenced

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

Evidence snippet: We demonstrate the success of replay in practice for fine-tuning 8B parameter models, improving agentic web navigation success by $4.5\%$ and Basque question-answering accuracy by $2\%$.

Rater Population

missing

Unknown

Confidence: Low Source: Persisted extraction missing

Rater source not explicitly reported.

Evidence snippet: To obtain a language model for a target domain (e.g.

Human Data Lens

  • Uses human feedback: No
  • Feedback types: None
  • Rater population: Unknown
  • Unit of annotation: Unknown
  • Expertise required: Math
  • Extraction source: Persisted extraction

Evaluation Lens

  • Evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics
  • Agentic eval: Web Browsing
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Confidence: 0.45
  • Flags: ambiguous

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported Metrics

accuracy

Research Brief

Deterministic synthesis

We demonstrate the success of replay in practice for fine-tuning 8B parameter models, improving agentic web navigation success by 4.5\% and Basque question-answering accuracy by 2\%. HFEPX signals include Automatic Metrics, Web Browsing with confidence 0.45. Updated from current HFEPX corpus.

Generated Mar 7, 2026, 5:51 AM · Grounded in abstract + metadata only

Key Takeaways

  • We demonstrate the success of replay in practice for fine-tuning 8B parameter models, improving agentic web navigation success by 4.5\% and Basque question-answering accuracy by…

Researcher Actions

  • Treat this as method context, then pivot to protocol-specific HFEPX hubs.
  • Identify benchmark choices from full text before operationalizing conclusions.
  • Validate metric comparability (accuracy).

Caveats

  • Generated from title, abstract, and extracted metadata only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.
  • Extraction confidence is probabilistic and should be validated for critical decisions.

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • We demonstrate the success of replay in practice for fine-tuning 8B parameter models, improving agentic web navigation success by 4.5\% and Basque question-answering accuracy by 2\%.

Why It Matters For Eval

  • We demonstrate the success of replay in practice for fine-tuning 8B parameter models, improving agentic web navigation success by 4.5\% and Basque question-answering accuracy by 2\%.

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Pass: Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Automatic Metrics

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Gap: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Pass: Metric reporting is present

    Detected: accuracy

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

Need human evaluators for your AI research? Scale annotation with expert AI Trainers.