Sign inGet started
Paper · arXiv

Minibatch persistency, eight years later: what batch reuse costs in steps and joules, and what it saves in data

Minibatch persistency reuses data instead of reading it: rather than drawing a fresh minibatch at every optimizer step, it takes K consecutive steps on the same one. Absorbed into data echoing in 2019, it has carried one objection -- that reuse merely imitates a larger learning rate -- and no baseline tuned as carefully as the method itself. This paper runs the missing test. A pre-registered study trains a 49M-parameter Transformer on FineWeb-Edu at minibatch size B in {32, 128, 512}, 8 seeds per cell, tuning the learning rate separately for every batch size and every arm, against a reuse-free control that changes the sampling and nothing else. Each headline claim is a cost to reach a fix...

AuthorsMatteo Fischetti
Primary categorycs.LG
Published12 September 2026
Last updated at source12 September 2026
cs.LGcs.DC
Embed this entry
<iframe src="https://silytics.si/embed/item/abe55329-9cb9-42cb-aa6a-5fe39e8667b3" width="420" height="190" style="border:0" loading="lazy" title="Silytics entry"></iframe>

Free, no tracking. More about feeds and embeds.

Silytics shows public metadata from arXiv and links to the original. Information may be incomplete or out of date. Last refreshed 17 October 2026. Licenses and terms of the original apply to the work itself. Not financial, legal or professional advice.