arXiv vs Common Crawl

Scale and Scope: Depth vs. Breadth

The most fundamental distinction between arXiv and Common Crawl is the trade-off between depth and breadth. arXiv's nearly 3 million papers represent an extraordinarily dense concentration of expert knowledge — virtually the entire frontier of AI, physics, and mathematics research is captured here. But this depth comes at the cost of scope: arXiv covers a handful of academic disciplines and says nothing about cooking, law, pop culture, or the thousands of other domains that general-purpose AI models need to understand.

Common Crawl inverts this equation. Each monthly crawl captures over 2 billion web pages spanning every conceivable topic, language, and register. The January 2026 crawl alone contained 398 TiB of uncompressed content. This breadth is what makes Common Crawl the backbone of pretraining for nearly every major LLM — from GPT-3 onward, Common Crawl has provided the general knowledge substrate that gives models their broad conversational and factual capabilities.

Data Quality and the Curation Spectrum

arXiv and Common Crawl sit at opposite ends of the curation spectrum. arXiv submissions go through a moderation process, and as of January 2026, the platform tightened its endorsement policies to no longer accept institutional email addresses as the sole qualifier for new authors. Review and position papers in computer science must now be peer-reviewed before submission. The result is a corpus where virtually every document contains substantive, structured argumentation.

Common Crawl takes the deliberate opposite approach: minimal curation to maximize downstream flexibility. The archive includes advertising copy, spam, machine-generated text, hate speech, and broken HTML alongside high-quality journalism and educational content. Research by Mozilla Foundation and others has documented that Common Crawl requires extensive filtering — projects like NVIDIA's Nemotron-CC exist specifically to transform raw Common Crawl data into usable pretraining corpora. This filtering step is non-trivial and directly affects model quality.

For builders of AI systems, this means arXiv data can often be used with minimal preprocessing, while Common Crawl demands a sophisticated data pipeline involving deduplication, language identification, quality scoring, and toxicity filtering before it yields good training signal.

Role in the LLM Training Pipeline

These two sources serve complementary roles in modern LLM development. Common Crawl dominates the pretraining phase, where models need to ingest massive volumes of diverse text to build general language understanding and world knowledge. Virtually every major open model — LLaMA, BLOOM, Falcon, and their successors — lists Common Crawl as a primary pretraining source.

arXiv's role is more targeted. Its content is invaluable for building models with strong scientific reasoning, mathematical ability, and technical comprehension. It frequently appears in specialized training mixes for deep learning research assistants, code generation models, and scientific question-answering systems. During fine-tuning and domain adaptation, arXiv papers provide a signal density that web crawl data simply cannot match.

Multilingual Coverage and Representation

Common Crawl captures content in hundreds of languages, making it a critical resource for building multilingual AI systems. Research such as UnifiedCrawl has focused on aggregating Common Crawl data specifically for low-resource language adaptation. However, Common Crawl's automated crawling prioritizes well-linked domains, which skews coverage toward English and other high-resource languages.

arXiv, by contrast, is overwhelmingly English-language. Beginning February 2026, the platform formally requires all submissions to include a full English-language version. While this ensures accessibility for the global research community, it means arXiv offers essentially zero value as a multilingual training resource.

Access, Infrastructure, and Cost

Both datasets are freely available, but they impose very different infrastructure requirements. arXiv's full corpus — while large by document-database standards — fits comfortably on a single server. Its structured metadata, LaTeX sources, and PDF files are straightforward to process with standard academic tooling.

Common Crawl's scale is a different matter entirely. At 10+ petabytes and growing by hundreds of terabytes monthly, working with the full archive requires significant cloud computing resources. The data is hosted on Amazon S3 through the AWS Open Data Sponsorship Program, which eliminates transfer costs, but processing it at scale still requires substantial compute. The recent increase of the per-page fetch limit from 1 MiB to 5 MiB (March 2025) means richer content per page but also larger crawl archives going forward.

Evolving Governance and Sustainability

Both organizations face governance challenges as AI's appetite for training data grows. arXiv's $7 million in funding from Schmidt Sciences and NASA in 2025 is helping modernize its technology stack and explore improved discovery mechanisms. The platform has also been tightening submission standards — a response to growing volumes and concerns about quality.

Common Crawl operates as a small nonprofit, yet its data underpins a multi-trillion-dollar AI industry. The Mozilla Foundation's research has highlighted the tension between Common Crawl's modest resources and its outsized importance. As legal and regulatory scrutiny of AI training data intensifies, the provenance and licensing characteristics of both sources will become increasingly important considerations for open-source AI development.