arXiv:2603.06603v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Data duplication during pretraining can degrade generalization and lead to memorization, motivating aggressive deduplication pipelines. However, at web scale, it is unclear what constitutes a ``duplicate'': beyond surface-form matches, semantically equivalent documents (e.g. translations) may induce redundant training signals once models become sufficiently capable. Practically, this means that semantic duplicates operate increasingly like exact duplicates during training. We present evidence that duplication is scale-dependent in two ways. First, as model capability increases, cross-entropy loss gradients for semantically equivalent documents become more aligned. Smaller models, by contrast, produce gradients that reflect surface similarity (e.g., shared tokens) rather than semantic similarity. Second, we embedded all 192 million FineWeb-Edu-Dedup documents using EmbeddingGemma-300m. For moderate corpus sizes, the cosine similarity between nearest-neighbors follows an isotropic power law baseline. However, as corpus size grows to hundreds of billions of tokens, the nearest-neighbor similarities deviate sharply, indicating accelerated semantic collisions. Finally, controlled pretraining on data sampled with replacement from pools of finite unique documents shows that limited uniqueness yields mild degradation for small models, but rapidly increasing loss penalties for larger models, breaking naive scaling extrapolation. We derive explicit scaling laws that allow practitioners to estimate deviation from expected scaling due to limited semantic uniqueness of the pretraining corpus. Our results identify and resolve an unstudied source of scale-dependence, allowing for more accurate prediction at scale.

arXiv:2603.06612v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Pass@k and other methods of scaling inference compute can improve language model performance in domains with external verifiers, including mathematics and code, where incorrect candidates can be filtered reliably. This raises a natural question: can we similarly scale compute to elicit gains in truthfulness for domains without convenient verification? We show that across five benchmarks and models, surprisingly, it cannot. Even at 25x the inference cost of naive sampling, polling-style aggregation yields no consistent accuracy gains over single-sample baselines and often amplifies shared misconceptions. We find that under uncertainty, models are better at predicting what other models will say within model ensembles than at identifying what is true, revealing a separation between social prediction and truth verification. Across models and benchmarks, aggregation fails to provide a robust truth signal because language model errors are strongly correlated. The source of correlation goes beyond any individual benchmark: we show that even when conditioned on out of distribution random strings and asked to produce pseudo-random outputs, different models produce correlated outputs. Confidence-based weighting provides no benefit because self-reported confidence fails to reliably distinguish correct from incorrect answers. These results delineate a boundary for inference-time scaling: in verified domains, additional samples provide more candidates for a verifier to filter; in unverified domains, additional samples merely reinforce shared misconceptions.