aiqbench analysis
This research demonstrates that the optimal strategy for selecting training data coresets is not universal but fundamentally dependent on the specific architecture and capacity of the target learner. By manipulating network width, input grid resolution, and stride configurations, the study reveals how these structural factors shift the crossover point between different sampling regimes. Consequently, practitioners must evaluate selection strategies relative to their intended model rather than relying on fixed heuristics derived from proxy datasets or alternative architectures.
Useful to Whom? Sample Value Is Defined Only Relative to the Learner
arXiv:2610.00221v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: What kind of data does a model need in order to learn? Coreset selection makes this question concrete: under a budget, keep the samples most useful for training. Easy-first and geometric coverage criteria can win in different budget regimes, separated by a crossover boundary. We ask whether this boundary is fixed by the data or changes with the target learner. Controlled experiments freeze the selected subsets and manipulate only the training learner. On low-resolution ImageNet-100, doubling ResNet-18's width moves the crossover from 57 to 85 samples per class: the learner changes the relative value of the same samples. A wider sweep reveals an interaction between input grid and capacity. Enlarging the grid while retaining the same image information shifts the boundary left, and this shift weakens as width increases. Stride controls reproduce and reverse the grid effect without changing the input grid; removing only the last downsampling stride is sufficient to recover the leftward shift. Under the native-224px ImageNet-1k protocol, width effects are smaller and depend on the probe: LFrac remains nearly flat, while EL2N shifts modestly right. Swapping the convolutional learning system for a ViT makes coverage win throughout the measured range, even when the easy subsets come from the convolutional proxy. These results establish learner dependence through frozen-subset interventions and identify network structure that can move the boundary. They do not yield a universal scaling law. Their practical implication is direct: a selection strategy's preferred budget regime must be evaluated with respect to the target learner.
Title:Useful to Whom? Sample Value Is Defined Only Relative to the Learner
Abstract:What kind of data does a model need in order to learn? Coreset selection makes this question concrete: under a budget, keep the samples most useful for training. Easy-first and geometric coverage criteria can win in different budget regimes, separated by a crossover boundary. We ask whether this boundary is fixed by the data or changes with the target learner. Controlled experiments freeze the selected subsets and manipulate only the training learner. On low-resolution ImageNet-100, doubling ResNet-18's width moves the crossover from 57 to 85 samples per class: the learner changes the relative value of the same samples. A wider sweep reveals an interaction between input grid and capacity. Enlarging the grid while retaining the same image information shifts the boundary left, and this shift weakens as width increases. Stride controls reproduce and reverse the grid effect without changing the input grid; removing only the last downsampling stride is sufficient to recover the leftward shift. Under the native-224px ImageNet-1k protocol, width effects are smaller and depend on the probe: LFrac remains nearly flat, while EL2N shifts modestly right. Swapping the convolutional learning system for a ViT makes coverage win throughout the measured range, even when the easy subsets come from the convolutional proxy. These results establish learner dependence through frozen-subset interventions and identify network structure that can move the boundary. They do not yield a universal scaling law. Their practical implication is direct: a selection strategy's preferred budget regime must be evaluated with respect to the target learner.
Machine Learning (cs.LG); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2610.00221 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2610.00221v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.00221 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 357 words
Related coverage
What's Continual Learning, and Why Might We Expect To See It In Advanced LLM Agents?
LessWrong · Jun 12, 2026

Generalization and infinite width
LessWrong · Aug 1, 2026
Sample Complexity of Multicalibration for Multilevel Properties
arXiv · Aug 6, 2026

Examining AI Swarm Efficiency with the AI Futures Model
LessWrong · Oct 19, 2026