# Data and Evaluation Closed-Loop for Model Capability Enhancement

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.28471 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.28471/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 9 of its 27 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 26 Jun 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 9 of 9)

- [Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.14168/) (2021)
- [Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.03374/) (2021)
- [Program Synthesis with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2108.07732/) (2021)
- [MMLU-Pro: A More Robust and Challenging Multi-Task Language Understanding Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.01574/) (2024)
- [The FineWeb Datasets: Decanting the Web for the Finest Text Data at Scale](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.17557/) (2024)
- [DataComp-LM: In search of the next generation of training sets for language models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.11794/) (2024)
- [FrontierMath: A Benchmark for Evaluating Advanced Mathematical Reasoning in AI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.04872/) (2024)
- [Data Mixing Laws: Optimizing Data Mixtures by Predicting Language Modeling Performance](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.16952/) (2024)
- [RegMix: Data Mixture as Regression for Language Model Pre-training](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.01492/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Model capability is the central variable in LLM pre-training, yet is never observed directly: data shapes it prospectively, while evaluation reveals it only retrospectively, compressing samples, prompts, decoding, and scoring rules into one noisy score. Practical optimization runs this backward: a failure is observed first, and the engineer must infer the corpus fix. The two sides speak incompatible vocabularies -- benchmark names and per-sample correctness versus data sources, domains, and quality labels -- so this inference is usually intuition, not method. We close this gap with the capability slice: a group of evaluation samples sharing background condition, task type, solving operation, and output constraint -- precise enough to localize a single weakness yet stable enough to survive aggregation, unlike a benchmark name, too coarse, or a single sample, too noisy. Built around this unit, an evaluation taxonomy, a non-instruction data taxonomy, and mapping rules form a closed loop turning a benchmark-level failure into a targeted, testable data intervention. We test this loop on two case studies pulling in opposite directions. First, the loop rules the data out: continued pre-training drives BBH down by -46.82%, but diagnosis traces this to a single masked texttttextless EOStextgreater loss rather than weakened reasoning; restoring it recovers BBH to 66.44, above the original checkpoint, without changing the data. Second, the loop rules the data in: a persistent math-reasoning weakness is decomposed by solving operation into specific failing combinations, and a weakness-targeted sampling procedure built from it lifts AIME2025/AIME2026 Pass@128 from 6.67/0.00 to 26.67 each. The same unmodified loop reaches opposite, correct verdicts in both cases, showing the evaluation-to-data inference can be routine, auditable, and experimentally validated rather than intuitive.