arXiv subjects

Mattia Nee

Publications and source records attributed to Mattia Nee.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2025

Common Corpus: The Largest Collection of Ethical Data for LLM Pre-Training

Large Language Models (LLMs) are pre-trained on large amounts of data from different sources and domains. Such datasets often contain trillions of tokens, including large portions of copyrighted or proprietary content, which raises questions about the legal use of such models. This underscores the need for truly open pre-training data that complies with data security regulations. In this paper, we introduce Common Corpus, the largest open dataset for LLM pre-training. The data assembled in Common Corpus are either uncopyrighted or under open licenses, totaling about two trillion tokens. The dataset contains a wide variety of languages, ranging from the high-resource European languages to some low-resource languages rarely represented in pre-training datasets. In addition, it includes a large amount of code data. The diversity of data sources in terms of covered domains and time periods opens up the paths for both research and entrepreneurial needs across diverse areas of knowledge. In this paper, we present the detailed provenance of data assembling and the details of dataset filtering and curation. We train two small language models on Common Corpus and find that they perform comparably to other models of their size, indicating that our dataset is suitable for multilingual pretraining. Common Corpus represents a key contribution to the ecosystem for open science research on Large Language Models.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Even Small Reasoners Should Quote Their Sources: Introducing the Pleias-RAG Model Family

We introduce a new generation of small reasoning models for RAG, search, and source summarization. Pleias-RAG-350m and Pleias-RAG-1B are mid-trained on a large synthetic dataset emulating the retrieval of a wide variety of multilingual open sources from the Common Corpus. They provide native support for citation and grounding with literal quotes and reintegrate multiple features associated with RAG workflows, such as query routing, query reformulation, and source reranking. Pleias-RAG-350m and Pleias-RAG-1B outperform SLMs below 4 billion parameters on standardized RAG benchmarks (HotPotQA, 2wiki) and are competitive with popular larger models, including Qwen-2.5-7B, Llama-3.1-8B, and Gemma-3-4B. They are the only SLMs to date maintaining consistent RAG performance across leading European languages and ensuring systematic reference grounding for statements. Due to their size and ease of deployment on constrained infrastructure and higher factuality by design, the models unlock a range of new use cases for generative AI.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

What the HellaSwag? On the Validity of Common-Sense Reasoning Benchmarks

Common-sense reasoning is a key language model capability because it encapsulates not just specific factual knowledge but rather general language and world understanding. Measuring common-sense reasoning, therefore, is crucial for language models of different sizes and applications. One of the most widely used benchmarks for evaluating such capabilities is HellaSwag; however, in this paper, we show that it has severe construct validity issues. These issues range from basic ungrammaticality and numerous typos to misleading prompts or equally correct options. Furthermore, we show that if models are evaluated only on answer texts, or with "Lorem ipsum dolor..." instead of the question, more than 65% of model predictions remain the same, and this cannot be attributed merely to contamination. Since benchmark scores are an essential part of model selection in both research and commercial applications, these validity issues can have severe consequences. In particular, knowing that taking benchmark scores at face value is ubiquitous, inadequate evaluation leads to ill-informed decisions about models. In this paper, we thoroughly investigate critical validity issues posed by HellaSwag and illustrate them with various evaluations using generative language models of different sizes. We argue that this benchmark does not accurately measure common-sense reasoning and, therefore, should not be used for evaluation in its current state. Based on the results of our study, we propose requirements that should be met by future common-sense reasoning benchmarks. In addition, we release GoldenSwag, a corrected subset of HellaSwag, which, to our belief, facilitates acceptable common-sense reasoning evaluation.

cs.CL↗