REVIEW 7 cited by
To Code, or Not To Code? Exploring Impact of Code in Pre-training
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
To Code, or Not To Code? Exploring Impact of Code in Pre-training
read the original abstract
Including code in the pre-training data mixture, even for models not specifically designed for code, has become a common practice in LLMs pre-training. While there has been anecdotal consensus among practitioners that code data plays a vital role in general LLMs' performance, there is only limited work analyzing the precise impact of code on non-code tasks. In this work, we systematically investigate the impact of code data on general performance. We ask "what is the impact of code data used in pre-training on a large variety of downstream tasks beyond code generation". We conduct extensive ablations and evaluate across a broad range of natural language reasoning tasks, world knowledge tasks, code benchmarks, and LLM-as-a-judge win-rates for models with sizes ranging from 470M to 2.8B parameters. Across settings, we find a consistent results that code is a critical building block for generalization far beyond coding tasks and improvements to code quality have an outsized impact across all tasks. In particular, compared to text-only pre-training, the addition of code results in up to relative increase of 8.2% in natural language (NL) reasoning, 4.2% in world knowledge, 6.6% improvement in generative win-rates, and a 12x boost in code performance respectively. Our work suggests investments in code quality and preserving code during pre-training have positive impacts.
Forward citations
Cited by 7 Pith papers
-
Can Transformers Really Do It All? On the Compatibility of Inductive Biases Across Tasks
Learned replacement non-linearities show transformers are rarely optimal for algorithmic tasks, with benefits that are task-specific, while language/code gains are smaller and more transferable.
-
Domain-Aware Scaling Laws Uncover Data Synergy
Domain-aware scaling laws with fitted γ and σ synergy terms recover stable code-math interactions from observational LLM mixtures and correctly predict mixture rankings in controlled small-scale trainings.
-
Bridging Generation and Training: A Systematic Review of Quality Issues in LLMs for Code
A review of 114 studies creates taxonomies for code and data quality issues, formalizes 18 propagation mechanisms from training data defects to LLM-generated code defects, and synthesizes detection and mitigation techniques.
-
Can Large Language Models Generalize Procedures Across Representations?
Post-training on graph or code versions of a planning task does not transfer to natural-language versions, but a symbolic-then-natural-language RL curriculum achieves strong transfer.
-
Procedural Pretraining: Warming Up Language Models with Abstract Data
A short warm-up on procedural data (brackets, sorting, sets) makes language models more accurate and more data-efficient on language, code, and informal math.
-
SmolLM2: When Smol Goes Big -- Data-Centric Training of a Small Language Model
SmolLM2 is a 1.7B-parameter language model that outperforms Qwen2.5-1.5B and Llama3.2-1B after overtraining on 11 trillion tokens using custom FineMath, Stack-Edu, and SmolTalk datasets in a multi-stage pipeline.
-
Can Coding Agents Be General Agents?
Coding agents reliably finish simple business tasks in an ERP system but show characteristic failures on complex tasks, with bridging domain logic and code execution as the main bottleneck.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.