HackerPapers

arXiv:2205.10487cs.LG

Scaling Laws and Interpretability of Learning from Repeated Data

Danny Hernandez, Tom Brown, Tom Conerly, Nova DasSarma, Dawn Drain, Sheer El-Showk, Nelson Elhage, Zac Hatfield-Dodds, Tom Henighan, Tristan Hume, Scott Johnston, Ben Mann, Chris Olah, Catherine Olsson, Dario Amodei, Nicholas Joseph, Jared Kaplan, Sam McCandlish

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.

arXiv comments
23 pages, 22 figures
Journal reference
DOI
Subjects
cs.LGMachine Learning cs.AIArtificial Intelligence

On Hacker News

Linked by 2 identifiable commenters in 2 comments across 2 threads, from Aug 2022 to Jun 2025.

Comments linking this paper, per year.

Discussed in comments2 threads

    • In general this is of course an active area of research, but yes, you can do something that and people have done it successfully[1] by adding extra layers to an existing model and then continuing to train it. You have to be careful about the "same data" part though; ideally you…

      kouteiheikaView on HNParent context

  1. Chinchilla's Wild Implications 1 comment
    • Oh, I actually meant to link to this paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2205.10487.pdf They make an argument that there might exist an unfortunate dup/unique data ratio in a dataset, where a model decides to memorize a frequently repeated chunk of data which is big enough to justify…

      p1eskView on HNParent context

Submitted to Hacker News

Connected through shared HN threads, not inferred similarity or a recommendation.