docs: fix storage backends (2->3) and per-field length filter

- Storage Backends: add JsonlStore (lazy on-the-fly tokenization)
- Describe memory-efficiency tradeoff across three backends
- Fix length filter: per-text-field skip, not per-sample global
- Abstract: HDF5/mmap -> tiered storage backends
- Rename metric figures (singular) and update references

main.tex

@@ -30,8 +30,8 @@
 \begin{abstract}
 We present {\sc AstrAI}, an open-source framework for end-to-end training
 of a 1.2B-parameter Transformer on $\sim$20B tokens. The pipeline covers
-JSON-driven BBPE preprocessing with multi-strategy packing, HDF5/mmap
-storage backends, and a companion SFT pipeline ({\sc Alembic}) with MinHash
+JSON-driven BBPE preprocessing with multi-strategy packing, tiered
+storage backends (in-memory HDF5, memory-mapped binary, and lazy JSONL), and a companion SFT pipeline ({\sc Alembic}) with MinHash
 deduplication and LLM-as-Judge scoring. The 24-layer decoder uses GQA,
 SwiGLU, RoPE, and RMSNorm, trained with a hybrid Muon/AdamW optimizer and
 WSD (Warmup--Stable--Decay) scheduling under DDP/FSDP. A BF16 stability analysis shows that
@@ -91,17 +91,30 @@ via a JSON specification that defines:
         \texttt{.bin} shards, auto-split at 100M tokens per shard.
 \end{itemize}
 
-Samples shorter than 50~chars or longer than 2M~chars are filtered out.
+In text-mode sections, individual fields shorter than 50~chars or
+longer than 2M~chars are skipped during tokenization.
 
 \subsection{Storage Backends}
 
-Two storage backends serve the DataLoader:
+Three storage backends serve the DataLoader, trading off memory
+footprint against access speed for datasets ranging from fine-tuning
+scale to TB-level pretraining:
 
 \begin{itemize}[nosep]
-  \item \textbf{H5Store}: HDF5-based, memory-loaded with shared-memory support
-        for multi-worker access.
-  \item \textbf{MmapStore}: Zero-copy memory-mapped \texttt{.bin} files shared
-        via OS page cache.
+  \item \textbf{H5Store}: HDF5-based, fully loaded into RAM at init
+        with \texttt{share\_memory\_()} for cross-worker sharing.
+        Fastest random access; requires the dataset to fit in memory.
+  \item \textbf{MmapStore}: Zero-copy memory-mapped \texttt{.bin} files
+        via \texttt{np.memmap}. Data stays on disk, managed by the OS
+        page cache; multiple workers share physical pages without
+        duplication. Suited for large pretraining corpora that exceed
+        RAM.
+  \item \textbf{JsonlStore}: Reads raw \texttt{.jsonl} directly. Lazy
+        mode (\texttt{processor=fn}) keeps only raw text records in
+        memory and defers per-sample tokenization to
+        \texttt{fetch\_record()}, avoiding a pre-tokenized copy
+        entirely---used by DPO/GRPO for on-the-fly training from
+        source files.
 \end{itemize}
 
 A resumable distributed sampler provides seed-based shuffle with
@@ -305,17 +318,17 @@ Figure~\ref{fig:ckpt_comparison} compares four configurations. The left panel sh
 
 \begin{figure}[H]
 \centering
-\includegraphics[width=0.85\linewidth]{data/muon_pt.png}
+\includegraphics[width=0.85\linewidth]{data/pt_metric.png}
 \caption{Muon optimizer training dynamics: training loss and learning
 rate schedule for the hybrid Muon/AdamW configuration across $\sim$25B
 tokens. The Muon optimizer is applied to all 2D weight matrices
 (attention projections and FFN layers), while AdamW handles 1D
 parameters (embeddings, biases, and normalization scales). The WSD
 schedule (warmup, stable phase, and final decay) is visible in the lower panel.}
-\label{fig:muon_pt}
+\label{fig:pt_metric}
 \end{figure}
 
-Figure~\ref{fig:muon_pt} shows the extended training dynamics of the
+Figure~\ref{fig:pt_metric} shows the extended training dynamics of the
 Muon optimizer configuration over $\sim$25B tokens. The loss curve
 exhibits the expected power-law decay in the early phase (0--5B tokens),
 followed by a gradual plateau as the model approaches convergence on
@@ -325,7 +338,7 @@ training, ensuring stable weight updates in the final phase.
 
 \begin{figure}[H]
 \centering
-\includegraphics[width=0.85\linewidth]{data/sft_metrics.png}
+\includegraphics[width=0.85\linewidth]{data/sft_metric.png}
 \caption{SFT training metrics over 1{,}000 fine-tuning steps on a
 mixed Chinese--English instruction dataset: training loss, learning
 rate, and gradient norm. The loss drops rapidly in the first 200
@@ -333,10 +346,10 @@ steps and then enters a slower decay phase. The learning rate
 follows a WSD schedule (2\% warmup, stable, decay). Gradient norms stabilize
 after approximately 300 steps, indicating that the fine-tuning
 process has reached a stable optimization regime.}
-\label{fig:sft_metrics}
+\label{fig:sft_metric}
 \end{figure}
 
-Figure~\ref{fig:sft_metrics} shows the supervised fine-tuning metrics
+Figure~\ref{fig:sft_metric} shows the supervised fine-tuning metrics
 for the 1K-step SFT checkpoint used in the IFD analysis
 (Appendix~\ref{app:ifd}). The training loss on the mixed
 Chinese--English instruction dataset decreases from $\sim$2.5 to
@@ -368,18 +381,18 @@ cosine schedule with short linear warmup.  The shorter ~3{,}000-step
 alignment run does not benefit from an extended stable phase; instead,
 cosine decay lowers the learning rate steadily, which discourages
 over-optimisation away from the reference distribution and matches the
-observed convergence pattern in Figure~\ref{fig:dpo_metrics}.
+observed convergence pattern in Figure~\ref{fig:dpo_metric}.
 
 \begin{figure}[H]
 \centering
-\includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth]{data/dpo_metrics.png}
+\includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth]{data/dpo_metric.png}
 \caption{DPO training metrics over $\sim$3{,}000 alignment steps:
 preference loss (raw and 100-step moving average), learning rate
 schedule, and gradient norm.}
-\label{fig:dpo_metrics}
+\label{fig:dpo_metric}
 \end{figure}
 
-Figure~\ref{fig:dpo_metrics} summarises the DPO training dynamics.
+Figure~\ref{fig:dpo_metric} summarises the DPO training dynamics.
 The raw preference loss (left panel) starts near $0.69$ and is visibly
 noisy, a hallmark of pairwise preference sampling.  The 100-step moving
 average reveals a steady downward trend that reaches a minimum of