David Schwab

Lane Lewis, Zhixin Wang, David Schwab et al.

If a person can solve a task, can measuring their brain make it easier to train a model to solve that task too? Recent NeuroAI work suggests that supplementing task training with neural recordings can modestly improve model performance and robustness. However, it is unclear when there should be a benefit from using neural data and how much benefit to expect. We formulate this question mathematically, and begin to address it theoretically using a simple, analytically tractable linear gaussian model of task targets and neural recordings. For a multimodal estimator trained on both brain data and task labels, we derive scaling laws for how performance scales with the numbers of brain and task samples. From these laws we derive relative value and exchange rates between brain samples and task samples, quantifying how much extra task samples neural data is worth as a function of task-brain alignment, neural and task noise, latent dimension, and brain data sample size. We also analyze test distribution shift, to identify conditions where brain-regularized learning can produce substantial robustness gains through learned invariances. Finally, under a fixed collection budget, we characterize the regimes in which brain data is worth collecting. Our results provide a foundation for understanding how valuable brain data could be for improving machine learning.

Siddharth Joshi, Haoli Yin, Rishabh Adiga et al.

Data curation has shifted the quality-compute frontier for language-model and contrastive image-text pretraining, but its role for vision-language models (VLMs) is far less established. We ask how far data curation alone can take VLM performance, holding architecture, training recipe, and compute fixed and varying only the training data. Our pipeline, applied to the MAmmoTH-VL single-image subset, lifts performance by +11.7pp on average across 20 public VLM benchmarks (spanning grounding, VQA, OCR/documents, captioning, spatial/3D, counting, charts, math, brand-ID, and multi-image reasoning) and by +11.3pp on average across all nine capability axes of DatBench, our high-fidelity VLM eval suite. At 2B, our curated model surpasses InternVL3.5-2B by 9.9pp at ~17x less training compute and closes the gap to Qwen3-VL-2B to within 1.8pp at ~87x less compute, from pretraining alone. Beyond accuracy, curation delivers four further properties: (1) Reliability: per-capability std across training seeds drops by ~67% and the lift survives a 4k-to-16k context-length sweep; (2) OOD generalization: the 9-eval OOD average rises by +7.2pp, and multi-image BLINK rises by +3.09pp despite single-image-only training, with Visual Correspondence gaining +11.8pp; (3) Behavioral gains beyond benchmarks: across ~1,100 open-ended queries the curated 2B is more honest and more specific than the matched-compute baseline, and more concise and less refusal-prone than a frontier 2B reference; (4) Pareto-dominance on inference cost: at every scale (1B, 2B, 4B) the curated model raises accuracy while lowering response FLOPs vs. the matched-compute baseline, and the curated 4B matches near-frontier accuracy at 3.3x lower response FLOPs than Qwen3-VL-4B. Data curation is a high-leverage tool for building better VLMs, reaching near-frontier accuracy at up to ~150x less training compute.

DatologyAI, Matthew L. Leavitt, Siddharth Joshi et al.

Inference efficiency is typically pursued by shrinking the model: distillation, pruning, quantization, and sparse routing each lower per-token cost while treating token count as fixed. But output length has been inflating, and it is precisely the component the standard toolkit leaves untouched. Here, we argue that brevity is the missing inference-efficiency lever, and that pretraining data curation is a practical way to pull it: a model trained on concise, correct data learns to answer in fewer tokens; i.e. it has a lower Cost-of-Pass. We apply our VLM curation pipeline to the MAmmoTH-VL single-image subset, and compare models trained on our curated data, the standard MAmmoTH-VL data, and external open-weight frontier VLMs. On a controlled 20-evaluation set and 14 VLMs at 1B-4B activated parameters, we hold output length fixed with a per-model regression, separating brevity from quality, and price models in FLOPs per correct answer. Curation buys a 35x Cost-of-Pass advantage over the most verbose 4B comparator (Qwen3.5-4B) within $\sim$1 pp of accuracy (0.41 vs 14.58 TFLOPs per correct answer; 0.691 vs 0.704 mean accuracy). Curation also buys a +17.55-percentage-point matched-length accuracy gain over the uncurated baseline that grows with model scale (from +16.7 pp at 1B to +21.2 pp at 4B). This brevity improvement concedes no quality: generic verbosity buys no accuracy at any capability or scale, and the window where reasoning-structured verbosity still earns its tokens shrinks from 4 of 8 capability groups at 2B to 1 of 8 at 4B. Per example, the concise model even reaches correct answers the verbose reasoning model misses, marking reasoning as a distinct curation target rather than something brevity gives up. Inference efficiency in this regime is a tokens-per-correct problem, and brevity is the lever that targets it directly.