探索全球前沿学术脉络

Does the Question Really Matter? Training-Free Data Selection for Vision-Language SFT

arXiv:2603.09715v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Visual instruction tuning is crucial for improving vision-language large models (VLLMs). However, many samples can be solved via linguistic patterns or common-sense shortcuts, without genuine cross-modal reasoning, limiting the effectiveness of multimodal learning. Prior data selection methods often rely on costly proxy model training and focus on difficulty or diversity, failing to capture a sample's true contribution to vision-language joint reasoning. In this paper, we propose CVS, a training-free data selection method based on the insight that, for high-quality multimodal samples, introducing the question should substantially alter the model's assessment of answer validity given an image. CVS leverages a frozen VLLM as an evaluator and measures the discrepancy in answer validity with and without conditioning on the question, enabling the identification of samples that require vision-language joint reasoning while filtering semantic-conflict noise. Experiments on Vision-Flan and The Cauldron show that CVS achieves solid performance across datasets. On Vision-Flan, CVS outperforms full-data training by 3.5% and 4.8% using only 10% and 15% of the data, respectively, and remains robust on the highly heterogeneous Cauldron dataset. Moreover, CVS reduces computational cost by 17.3% and 44.4% compared to COINCIDE and XMAS.

BioMamba: Domain-Adaptive Biomedical Language Models

Background. Biomedical language models should improve performance on biomedical text while retaining general-language-modeling fluency. For Mamba-based models, this trade-off has not been systematically studied across biomedical literature and clinical text. Methods. We developed BioMamba, a family of biomedical Mamba2 models at five scales obtained by continued pretraining of released public Mamba2 checkpoints on a balanced 80%/10%/10% mixture of PubMed abstracts, the Colossal Clean Crawled Corpus (C4), and Wikipedia. The contribution is the adaptation recipe and the accompanying open-weight checkpoints. Results. Across five scales, BioMamba consistently lowered PubMed perplexity, improved Wikipedia-style held-out perplexity by 1.46-4.72 PPL, and left C4 perplexity essentially unchanged. On six out-of-domain multiple-choice benchmarks, BioMamba stayed within +/-3 percentage points of Mamba2 with no systematic regression. After supervised fine-tuning, BioMamba+SFT matched or exceeded Mamba2+SFT on MIMIC-IV note completion and discharge summary generation at every evaluated scale, and improved PubMedQA at every scale. The strongest model (BioMamba-2.7B) reached a PubMed perplexity of 5.28 and accuracies of 90.24% and 73.00% on BioASQ and PubMedQA, respectively. Conclusions. A balanced domain-adaptive continued pretraining recipe strengthens Mamba2 language models on biomedical literature and clinical text while preserving general-language-modeling fluency.

ResearchClawBench: A Benchmark for End-to-End Autonomous Scientific Research

AI coding agents are increasingly used for scientific work, but their end-to-end autonomous research capability remains difficult to verify. We present ResearchClawBench, a benchmark for evaluating autonomous scientific research across 40 tasks from 10 scientific domains. Each task is grounded in a real published paper, provides related literature and raw data, and hides the target paper during evaluation. Expert-curated multimodal rubrics decompose the target scientific artifacts into weighted criteria, enabling evaluation of target-paper-level re-discovery while leaving room for new discovery. We evaluate seven autonomous research (auto-research) agents under a unified protocol and seventeen native LLMs through the lightweight ResearchHarness. Current systems remain far from reliable re-discovery: the strongest autonomous agent, Claude Code, averages 21.5, and the strongest ResearchHarness LLM, Claude-Opus-4.7, averages 20.7, with an LLM frontier mean of only 26.5. Error analysis shows that failures concentrate in experimental protocol mismatch, evidence mismatch, and missing scientific core. ResearchClawBench provides a reproducible evaluation frontier for measuring progress toward autonomous scientific research.