# Efficient Data Selection for Multimodal Models via Incremental Optimization Utility

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.07488 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.07488/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in MLLM training and visual instruction tuning, one of 16 directions in Multimodal LLMs / vision-language models.
- Builds on 23 of its 50 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 8 May 2026.

## Placed in

- Multimodal LLMs / vision-language models / [MLLM training and visual instruction tuning](https://mlsanity.com/mllm/mllm-training-and-visual-instruction-tuning/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 23 of 23)

- [Qwen3 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.09388/) (2025)
- [Scaling Laws for Neural Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2001.08361/) (2020)
- [Efficient Memory Management for Large Language Model Serving with PagedAttention](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.06180/) (2023)
- [GPT-4o System Card](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.21276/) (2024)
- [Qwen3-VL Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.21631/) (2025)
- [InternVL3: Exploring Advanced Training and Test-Time Recipes for Open-Source Multimodal Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.10479/) (2025)
- [A Survey on LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.15594/) (2024)
- [ZeRO: Memory Optimizations Toward Training Trillion Parameter Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1910.02054/) (2019)
- [From Generation to Judgment: Opportunities and Challenges of LLM-as-a-judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.16594/) (2024)
- [The Curse of Recursion: Training on Generated Data Makes Models Forget](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.17493/) (2023)
- [We-Math: Does Your Large Multimodal Model Achieve Human-like Mathematical Reasoning?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.01284/) (2024)
- [LogicVista: Multimodal LLM Logical Reasoning Benchmark in Visual Contexts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.04973/) (2024)
- [Will we run out of data? Limits of LLM scaling based on human-generated data](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.04325/) (2022)
- [Preference Leakage: A Contamination Problem in LLM-as-a-judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.01534/) (2025)
- [Machine Learning for Synthetic Data Generation: A Review](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.04062/) (2023)
- [Comprehensive Exploration of Synthetic Data Generation: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.02524/) (2024)
- [Maybe Only 0.5% Data is Needed: A Preliminary Exploration of Low Training Data Instruction Tuning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.09246/) (2023)
- [A Survey on Data Synthesis and Augmentation for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.12896/) (2024)
- [Predictive Data Selection: The Data That Predicts Is the Data That Teaches](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.00808/) (2025)
- [Montessori-Instruct: Generate Influential Training Data Tailored for Student Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.14208/) (2024)
- [Compute-Constrained Data Selection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.16208/) (2024)
- [A Survey of Data Synthesis Approaches](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.03672/) (2024)
- [Less is More: High-value Data Selection for Visual Instruction Tuning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.09559/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

The scaling of Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) is constrained by the quality-quantity trade-off inherent in synthetic data. Previous approaches, such as LLM-as-a-Judge, have proven their effectiveness in addressing this but suffer from prohibitive computational costs and lack of interpretability. To bridge this gap, we propose One-Step-Train (OST), a framework that reformulates data selection as an incremental optimization utility ranking problem. Instead of relying on semantic heuristics, OST estimates the marginal utility of each sample via a simulated single-step update on a lightweight proxy. Experiments on the Qwen series across multimodal mathematical reasoning benchmarks demonstrate that OST achieves Pareto-optimal efficiency. By selecting the top-50 subset, OST reduces training costs by 43% (and total time consumption by 17) while surpassing the strong LLM-as-a-Judge baseline by 1.8 points. Furthermore, under a fixed compute budget, our method using only the top-20 subset achieves a 5.6 point gain over LLM-as-a-Judge, improves upon heuristic scoring baselines like DEITA, and outperforms the Full-SFT baseline by 8.8 points. Notably, while Full-SFT suffers from performance degradation due to noise, our optimization-grounded approach effectively identifies toxic samples, successfully reversing the negative transfer frequently observed in complex reasoning tasks.