Conditional Transfer from Controlled Pretraining Mixtures to Code
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Synthetic tasks are increasingly used both as probes of language-model capability and as pretraining data. Both uses are often justified by loss reduction: falling loss is treated as informative, and faster loss reduction with more sampling as evidence that a task is worth sampling. We separate three signals. A task is diagnostic when its loss tracks global pretraining progress; it is teachable when its loss responds to its own token budget; and a data source transfers when including it improves a downstream target. We study controlled pretraining in which 70% of the corpus is fixed general Python and the remaining 30% is a simplex over three source families: OpenCodeInstruct, a curated suite of 12 code-adjacent synthetic tasks, and 15 literature-derived probe tasks. Across a task-budget sweep we detect teachability for 14 of 27 tasks, with a sharp asymmetry between the two synthetic families (10/12 curated versus 4/15 literature-derived). Teachability and downstream transfer give different rankings. On the mixture-simplex edge between the curated suite and OpenCodeInstruct, HumanEval pass@20 after a fixed fine-tuning stage rises from 15.9 at pure curated data to its highest observed value, 22.6, at a mixture that is 75% OpenCodeInstruct, then falls to 19.5 at pure OpenCodeInstruct. Curated synthetic data therefore has conditional value: it contributes as a limited share of a mixture that a target-aligned source still dominates. Finally, a loss-based adaptive scheduler exposes the mismatch between residual loss reducibility and downstream transfer. Across three 60k-step free-ratio runs, Ado drives the OpenCodeInstruct share below 5% within the first 5k steps and to 1.2--1.4% by the end of training, and underperforms its matched fixed-mixture controls by 2.4--11.0 percentage points. Optimizing near-term task-loss reduction moves the mixture away from the region that transfers.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 19 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 8 Oct 2026.
Builds on
17 of 19 references.
References · 17
- 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,053
- 2023Label Words are Anchors: An Information Flow Perspective for Understanding In-Context Learningcited by 235
- 2023How does GPT-2 compute greater-than?: Interpreting mathematical abilities in a pre-trained language modelcited by 199
- 2024Data Mixing Laws: Optimizing Data Mixtures by Predicting Language Modeling Performancecited by 179
- 2024RegMix: Data Mixture as Regression for Language Model Pre-trainingcited by 172
- 2023Skill-it! A Data-Driven Skills Framework for Understanding and Training Language Modelscited by 120
- 2023DoGE: Domain Reweighting with Generalization Estimationcited by 87
- 2025OpenCodeInstruct: A Large-scale Instruction Tuning Dataset for Code LLMscited by 57
- 2024How to think step-by-step: A mechanistic understanding of chain-of-thought reasoningcited by 53
- 2024Adaptive Data Optimization: Dynamic Sample Selection with Scaling Lawscited by 46
- 2024Unlocking the Future: Exploring Look-Ahead Planning Mechanistic Interpretability in Large Language Modelscited by 21
- 2024Transformers Struggle to Learn to Searchcited by 19
5 more
- 2024Can Transformers Reason Logically? A Study in SAT Solvingcited by 16
- 2025In-Context Algebracited by 4
- 2025SURGE: On the Potential of Large Language Models as General-Purpose Surrogate Code Executorscited by 3
- 2025SATQuest: A Verifier for Logical Reasoning Evaluation and Reinforcement Fine-Tuning of LLMscited by 3
- 2024From Symbolic Tasks to Code Generation: Diversification Yields Better Task Performerscited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.